Regulated Industries — Closed Captions

>> All right. Members, the Committee on Regulated Industries will now come to order. Susan, please call the roll. >> Chair Bradley. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Pizzo. Senator Bernard. Senator Boyd. >> Here. >> Senator Bracy Davis. >> Here. Senator Brodeur. >> Here. >> Senator Burgess. >> Here. >> Senator Calatayud. >> Senator Mayfield. >> Here. >> Here's a quorum. >> Thank you, Susan. Please silence all electronic devices. Anyone wishing to speak before the committee should complete an appearance form and hand it to a member of the sergeant's office. Should you select to waive your speaking time, your position will be included in the meeting records. Members, we have several bills as well as appointments. We are going to go through our bills first. So with that, we are going to take up Tab 8. And that is SB 468 on animal cruelty by Senator Wright. And Senator Wright, you are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members. I appreciate you hearing this bill. Senate Bill 468 establishes mandatory reporting requirements for veterinarians and veterinarian technicians if animal cruelty is suspected. Veterinarians and veterinarian technicians would be required to report suspected, both past or ongoing incidents of animal cruelty to a local law enforcement or animal control officer. Additionally, the bill clarifies that veterinarians can provide medical patient records to authorities if a veterinarian suspects animal cruelty. The bill also creates a new section of law dealing with reporting animal cruelty, where clarifying definitions are provided for the terms animal cruelty, animal treatment provider, and good faith report. Finally, the bill provides that the provisions may not be construed to prohibit any person from making a good faith report of suspected animal cruelty to any national, state or local government authority, or any animal control agency, and that is the bill, Madam Chair. >> Thank you for that explanation. Are there any questions on the bill? We do have a few appearance forms. We have Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance, waving in support, as well as Kate McFall, Humane World, waving in support. Members, is there any debate on the bill? >> It's a great bill. I had something similar a few years ago. Like, exactly the same. >> Senator Wright, you are recognized to close on the bill. >> I wave close, Madam Chair. >> Susan, please call the roll on SB 468. >> Senator Bernard. Senator Boyd. Senator Bracy Davis. >> Yes. Senator Brodeur. Senator Burgess. Senator Calatayud. Senator Mayfield. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Chair Bradley. >> Yes. And by your vote, SB 468 is reported favorably. Thank you. >> The animals, thank you. Thank you. >> All right. We are waiting for the other presenters. We will jump to Tab 13, SB 1706 by Senator Pizzo. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> And that is SB 1706, My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot Program. Senator Pizzo, you're recognized to explain the bill. >> Thanks. All of you voted for what was intended to be a wildly popular condo pilot program for My Safe Florida home. Took a long time to even start the rollout process. And now that we realized that there was no additional funding allocated for it, we really narrowly target those that are most in need. So this revises eligibility requirements for participation in that program. For those buildings that have 80% or more of owner-occupied and that are up to 80% of the local AMI, that is the bill. >> Members, any questions on the bill? Do we have any appearance forms? No. Is there any debate? >> Thank you, Madam Chair, but I wanted to thank Senator Pizzo for that because there is a need in the Condominium Association, because we do have a lot of elderly that live there. They come down here and retire, and they're on a fixed income. So I think this is very appropriate for us to make these adjustments, and hopefully we'll have money in the budget this year to be able to help those families. >> Thank you. And I'll echo that. We had the best of intentions when we created this program, but it's just not rolling out in practice so that people are able to access it. And this changes the requirements in a way that I think that the folks who we intended to get the relief and to be able to avail themselves of the program will be able to do so. So thank you, Senator Pizzo, for the bill, and you're recognized to close. >> Can't top that. Appreciate your support. >> Susan, please call the roll on SB 1706. Senator Bernard. Senator Boyd. Senator Bracy Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Yes. >> Senator Burgess. >> Yes. >> Senator Calatayud. Senator Mayfield. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Chair Bradley. >> Yes. And by your vote, SB 1706 is reported favorably. And we are awaiting Senator DiCeglie's arrival, so we will just stand in recess for a few minutes till he makes his way. All right, members, sorry, I spy Senator DiCeglie. So we will go to Tab 10. And that is SB 1234 on building permits and inspections, and you're recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Madam Chairman. Key components of this legislation, ensure single family building permits remain valid for at least 180 days or until the next code addition, exempt from building permit permitting requirements, any work valued under 7,500 for single family dwelling projects unrelated to structural electrical or plumbing projects, exempt temporary hurricane protection flood walls and barriers from permitting requirements, require a building official to approve, approve with conditions or deny a building permit within five days if complete and submitted by a plan reviewer for projects under $15,000, simplifies the private provider documentation, sets time lines for agency reviews, limit local government oversight to complete list checks only, and prevents fee setting based on project value and instead requires fees to reflect the actual cost of the inspection, Madam Chair, as you certainly know, there is a very large amendment as well. >> Thank you for that explanation, and there is one late-filed amendment, and then we will also get to an amendment to the amendment. But first, we'll take up the late filed amendment Barcode 269350 by Senator DiCeglie. Any objection to taking that up? Seeing none, Senator DiCeglie, you're recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you very much. I will try to do my best to be brief, but it is a larger There's a lot in here. The amendment clarifies that there is nothing preventing a local government from extending the building permit beyond one year. It clarifies that the bill is only exempting temporary hurricane and flood protection walls and barriers from the Florida building code requirements. The amendment clarifies that a construction project may not be divided into more than one project for the purposes of qualifying for the 7,500 or less exemption from a building permit, clarifies that building permits are still required for mechanical and gas work even if that work done was valued at less than $7,500. Clarifies that for any work performed under the $7,500 exemption, the person performing the work, other than the property owner shall file a notice of work with the local enforcement agency provides the certificate of compliance must be signed by the private provider and any duly authorized representatives who physically perform the inspection if applicable, it deletes the definition of system of registration within the private provider database, makes technical changes incorporating a registration system for private providers, clarifies that a private provider registration in the DBPRs registry shall be deemed sufficient to satisfy any local registration requirements, clarifies that the uniform building permit applications adopted shall be capable of integration with existing building permit software systems. Madam Chair, I want to thank your great staff and yourself for this well-drafted amendment. >> Thank you, Senator DiCeglie. And I appreciate your incredible indulgence and willingness, and I think that we're in a much better place, and I think this is a really good bill. We'll now take up the amendment to the amendment, Barcode 263612, and you're recognized to explain the amendment to the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. This conforms the Senate bill to the House Bill by allowing school districts and independent special districts to use private inspection firms or internally employ building inspectors. >> Are there questions on the amendment to the amendment? Are there any appearance forms on the amendment to the amendment? Any debate? You're recognized to close on the amendment to the amendment? >> Wave close. >> Is there any objection to the amendment to the amendment? Seeing none, we'll show the amendment to the Amendment adopted. We are back on the amendment as amended. Any questions on the amendment as amended? Are there appearance forms? Kari Hebrank, Florida Home Builders, and NUCA of Florida speaking for. >> Wave and Support. >> Wave and support. Thank you. Is there any debate on the amendment? You're recognized to close. >> Wave close. >> All in favor, say yay. >> Yay. >> Any nay? The amendment is adopted. Now we are on the bill as amended. Are there questions on the bill as amended? Do you have any appearance forms on the bill as amended? We've got Dallas Thiesen from the Florida Swimming Pool Association waving in Support. Kari Hebrank, Florida Home Builders, and NUCA, Florida, speaking. >> Waving. >> Waving, thank you. Colton Madill, Florida Chamber of Commerce, waving in support. Thank you. And Jason Maine, Storm Smart Industries, waving in Support. Members, any debate on the bill as amended? You're recognized to close. >> Please vote for this great Bill. >> Very good. Susan, please call the roll on CS for SB 1234. >> Senator Bernard. Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bracy Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Yes. >> Senator Burgess. Senator Calatayud. Senator Mayfield. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Chair Bradley. >> Yes. And by your vote, CS for SB 1234 is reported favorably. And if you will stay with us, Senator DiCeglie, we will go to Tab 11 SB 1260 on building inspections during an emergency, and you are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you. >> I see a strike call. Would you care to go to the strike-all? >> We can go right to the strike-all. >> Okay, we'll take up Amendment Barcode 672238 by Senator DiCeglie, and you're recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, the amendment simplifies the procedure for local governments to procure additional permitting and inspection staff by requiring the Department of Management Services to maintain one or more state term contracts with vendors for the purpose of conducting building inspections after emergencies. And senators, this is one of those bills that came directly from our experiences in Pinellas County. So many of our municipalities, I represent 20, especially the ones in the Barrier Islands. They had a very difficult time finding local inspectors. So really, the incredible amount of delay that was associated with that was something that was very problematic and this bill is attempting to address that to provide local governments with those resources to help folks recover, get back into their homes as quickly as possible. That is the amendment. >> Are there any questions on the amendment? Do we have any appearance forms on the amendment? No. Any debate on the amendment? You're recognized to close. >> Wave close. >> All in favor, say yay. >> Yay. >> Any opposed? The amendment is adopted. We're back on the bill as amended. Questions on the bill as amended. Any appearance forms? No. Any debate on the bill as amended? Senator Boyd. >> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator DiCeglie. I appreciate very much the different issues you've taken on, actually post-storm, and some of the challenges that we faced in our community. So you're really serving the constituents well. We've had a lot of comments about the good things you've done, so thank you for all that hard work. >> Very good. Any additional debate? You're recognized to close on the bill as amended. >> Again, this is really important, not only for my community but throughout the state of Florida, because folks who might not have dealt with the hurricane season in 2024 or all the various ones prior to we're at a peninsula on a peninsula. And certainly, my goal is to identify ways that we can improve the very difficult process that our constituents face after a storm. So with that, I close. >> Thank you. Susan, please call the roll on CS for SB 1260. >> Senator Bernard, Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bracy Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Yes. >> Senator Burgess. >> Yes. >> Senator Calatayud, Senator Mayfield. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pizzo. >> Yes Chair Bradley. >> Yes. And by your vote, CS for SB 1260 is reported favorably. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you. All right, members, I'm going to turn the chair over to Vice Chair Pizzo for Tab 9. >> I was inherent danger with that. Let's take up Tab 9, SB 822, Community Association Management by Senator Gruters as presented by Senator Rodriguez. >> Thank you, Chair Pizzo, Vice Chair members of the committee. Senate Bill 822 requires community associations with budgets at or exceeding 500,000 to be professionally managed. This mirrors current law and precedent that requires community associations with budgets at or exceeding $500,000 to utilize a licensed professional CPA to conduct required audits of association financials, and that is the bill. >> Excellent. Are there questions on the bill? We have an amendment. There's one Amendment 871556 by Senator Bradley, timely filed, of course. Senator Bradley? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, this amendment raises the annual revenue minimum for those associations to 750,000, adds a threshold of hundred or more parcels. And it also doesn't limit to just CAM firms, but allows associations to direct hire more credentialed managers. That's the amendment. >> Are there questions on the amendment? Chuck Schumacher, where are you? Chuck, speaking for the Community Association Institute. >> Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Bradley. Thank you, Vice Chair Pizzo. My name is Chuck Schumacher. I am a licensed Community Association Manager, and I have been since 2005. I've lived and worked in this profession in Naples, Florida since that time. I also carry two of those designations that we speak of. In the bill, you can see there's three of those listed being the CMCA, the AMS, and the PCAM. Now, those letters also stand for the work that it takes to get them. So your CMCA requires at least two years of licensed management practice. And then that also requires educational course and testing in order to achieve that designation. Same thing with your association management specialist or your AMS. Which requires two years of experience in administration, financial, and a year of facilities management under your belt as well, as well as two additional courses to achieve that. And then your Professional Community Association Manager designation PCAM, which requires at least five years of Florida license management and extensive course work could take over a year to achieve. So those are the things I wanted to speak on. I also am the chair of the Community Association Institute Legislative Action Committee, or what we call flaw to others. >> Stop bragging man. >> I love it. It's a great. This is my last year, so I got to poke it as much as I can. >> We actually have a plaque for you, I believe. >> I think it's out back by the dumpster. I'll grab it on my way out. But when we look at this, it allows the associations to continue their right of choice of how they're professionally managed. So if I could give you just some data from my district that I was able to pull in the last couple of days, if we look at the Florida coastline, which would consist of roughly about 116 high rises and mid rises that would be over that threshold, a little bit 39% of those are direct higher. So they don't have a management firm. They have an onsite manager that's licensed and has been there for some time. Outside of that district, stretching down to Marco and out to Astero, we see the same number. It's a little bit higher at 48%. So there is licensed professional managers out there that don't work for management firms that are doing their jobs, and there's not a lot of noise behind them. So with that, I would like to offer our support. And if there's any questions, I'd gladly ask them. >> One question. You're okay if somebody's not on site, but still ultimately performing the same task, correct? >> Yeah. >> We have some boutique buildings that are very small. They don't really even have the space for proper management office. >> Yeah, there's other ones like that where your maintenance guy is also the license CAM. And as weird as that might sound, they are over that 750,000 threshold. I mean, the insurance for most of these high rises and mid rises along the coast has almost pushed them over that for the last few years by itself. Coupled in with your milestone inspection, your sears and the funding that's required by those, your budgets are going to exceed that amount. So the one thing I would caution is, if it's January 1, 2027, there might be a little bit of a strenuous action on those associations or managers to get those designations. >> Got you. >> In time for that point in time. >> Mr. Schumacher, thank you. Thank you, service. >> Appreciate it. Thank you, sir. >> Any debate on the amendment? Senator Bradley is recognized closing the amendment. >> I'll wave close. >> All in favor of the amendment, say yea? >> Yea. >> Opposed? The amendment is adopted. Back on the bills amended. Are there questions on the bills amended? >> Senator Levon Bracy? >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have one question, and I think all the people that have come to my office talked through this bill. It's really technical. But if we were in a room full of average everyday florian, they would only have one question about this bill. And this is, will this bill make homeowners monthly fees or dues go up? >> Thank you, Madam Chair, Vice Chair. I don't think this will impact people's monthly fee. It'll actually probably keep it about the same. I think the budgets would have to be reconfigured. They may have to cut from other areas to help pay for this service. I see where you're going with it. But I think that's their job is to look at their budget and say, how can we pay for this without raising our annual dues and they would have to look at their budget to make that happen. I can't promise that it wouldn't go up, but they would have to look at their budget and see how they can pay for this type of service. >> Anybody else? Questions? Appearance forms. We have Travis Moore Community Association Institute waving in support. We have Mark Anderson, speaking for Chief Executive Officer of Management Companies. And then we are going to have Eugene Claseman. Mark, what happened to you? >> I got uglier. >> Josh Burkett? >> Yes, I will fill out a speaker card. Great I just wanted to one thank Chair Bradley and her staff for this amendment. And we do have someone here that will go into more detail, Senator Bracy Davis. But it really does depend. There absolutely could be a cost increase, but that would be a minimal cost increase. A lot of times what we look at is some of these self managed associations are either spending too much money on maintenance staff or vendor contracts, and when they have, whether it is a single CAM or a management company come in and look at those financials. I can actually be a net neutral or cost savings. But just want to say thank you so much. >> Eugene Claseman? Am I saying that right? >> Yes. Claseman. >> Claseman. Good handwriting, man. >> Thank. [inaudible] Panama City Beach, Florida. >> There you go. >> Northwest Florida. Chair, members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Eugene Claseman. I hold a CMCA and AMS, and a PCAM. And I'm also the owner of Maxt Management Group. We're at Northwest Florida, Panama City Beach B specific. We manage high rise condominiums and HAs with budgets that often rival small communities or small municipalities. Across Florida, large associations control millions of dollars in owner funds. But the standards governing you manage that complexity are inconsistent. In many communities, especially under Chapter 720, owners have no state level enforcement mechanism, so too often, the only recourse is expensive litigation. Senate Bill 822 fixes this by aligning management requirements with financial risk. This bill doesn't mandate management firms for every community. It only applies when budgets reach a size where professionalization becomes essential. Today, Florida already requires licensed CPAs once an association reaches a certain financial threshold. It's only common sense that licensed managers should also be required once an association reaches similar levels of financial complexity. This bill places clear duty on board members to verify licensure and certification before hiring, a simple, enforceable safeguard that prevents associations from unknowingly engaging unqualified operators. This legislation lifts standards without expanding government. It uses existing licensure under Chapter 468. It does not build new bureaucracy. Instead, it provides earlier and more practical remedies for owners, reducing preventable disputes and improving transparency. As someone who has spent over a decade in this field, I can tell you, good managers welcome higher standards. This bill doesn't restrict opportunity. It protects homeowners' investments, reduce legal conflicts, and ensure that Florida's largest associations receive the level of professionalism they deserve. I'm open for questions. If I were to answer your question, ma'am, I would say. >> Go ahead. >> I'm sorry. Chair. >> Go ahead. I'm pretending to be procedural, but go ahead. >> Well, I'll pretend with you. Ma'am, I would say it could be a Net 0. If I may speak plainly, how many of us in this room have made a purchase, a knee jerk purchase, Amazon or of the sort and received that product or service and realized it doesn't fit the bill. It doesn't do what I needed to do. When we could have gone and seek the advice of a professional that could recommend to us based on our needs, what a service or a product that would fit our scope, I see that this happens often where associations that are managed by board members who mean the best, they do. But they do not have a professional obligation to stay with the times, learn new technologies, implement these practices. And too often, we find that they're paying too much in workers' comp insurance or it may be the services that they're obtaining from vendors. >> Great. So a great job. Thank you. >> Any questions? >> No, we're good. >> Senator Bradley and I have spent a couple of minutes or so on inside of condo, so I think we're pretty well versed on this. >> Any debate on the bill? No. Senator Rodriguez, you're recognized to close on the bill as amended. >> I ask for everyone's favorable support. >> Susan's going to call the roll on CS for SB 822. >> Senator Bernard. >> Yes. >> Senator Boyd. >> Yes. >> Senator Bracy Davis. >> Yes. >> Senator Brodeur. >> Yes. >> Senator Burgess. >> Yes. >> Senator Calatayud. >> Yes. >> Senator Mayfield. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Pizzo. >> Yes. >> Chair Bradley. >> Yes. >> And by your vote we're going to show CS for SB 822 reported favorably, handing the gavel back to Senator Bradley. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And Senator Martin's enroute. So again, we will just stand in recess for just a minute and wait for him to get here. Members, we'll come back to order. Good afternoon, Senator Martin. We will turn to Tab 12 SB 15 80 on illegal gaming by Senator Martin, and you are recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you, Chair. Illegal gaming is a growing predatory problem, targeting vulnerable Floridians, and current penalties are too weak to deter the operators. The Gaming Commission has received over 9,300 complaints, and enforcement actions last year seized thousands of illegal machines and millions in unlawful proceeds. This bill restores real deterrence by making the operation of illegal gambling houses and leasing space for them, a third degree felony, while increasing penalties for related illegal gaming activities. Violators would also lose certain business licenses, creating stronger consequences for continuing illegal operations. The bill authorizes proper destruction of seized illegal machines and strengthens enforcement tools for the commission and law enforcement. It provides regulatory clarity, allowing veterans organizations to seek legal determinations, preempts gaming regulation to the state and creates a voluntary surrender program for illegal devices. A targeted administrative fix improves staffing flexibility for the Gaming Commission. The goal is to protect communities, uphold legal gaming integrity, and stop bad actors who profit from illegal operations. That is the bill. >> All right, members, are there questions on the bill before we go to the amendment? Seeing no questions, we will take up a late filed amendment, Bar code 178928 by Senator Martin. You're recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you. This amendment removes the fantasy sports provision from the bill. >> Are there questions on the amendment? And there are no appearance forms on the amendment? Any debate? Senator Martin, you recognized to close on the amendment? >> I'll wave. >> All in favor say yea? >> Yea. >> Any opposed? The amendment is adopted. We're back on the bill as amended. Are there questions on the bill as amended? >> Quick one, Madam Chair. >> Yeah, Senator Pizzo. >> Thanks. Would you be amenable and serendipitously, we have Florida Gaming here today. I don't want to piss off the VFW. Can we just come up with a consensus list of machines, types, games, whatever to be accepted or excluded from being captured or defined as or included in the four corners of what we're trying to get out here? I get a strong indication that they're willing to come forward and say, we have this, we have this, and we have this. Are we okay to have it? Because there seems to be a big gray area. I would imagine that you're amenable to that if we can get everyone together. >> Thank you. So there is a provision that you and I worked on on the floor two years ago that basically did something that doesn't exist in criminal law here in the State of Florida, which allows the Veterans organizations to contact the Gaming Commission and come in on a case by case basis, say, this machine is legal. This machine is not legal, give them the ability. It's almost like giving somebody who's dealing drugs, the ability to come in and say, hey, are these drugs legal, or are these drugs illegal and then not charge them for possession of illegal drugs? We're doing that with the Veterans because we understand it's a really important issue, and we want to make sure that veterans are not being prosecuted for doing something that they've done for a while. But there is a compact out there it's negotiated with the state of Florida, the Seminole Tribe, so our goal is to make sure that they're getting what they're paying for. We're getting the benefits of the compact, but also that we don't have innocent third parties that are caught in the middle. >> Got you. I think, actually, Madam Chair, New Haven tried an experiment where they actually tested cocaine for fentanyl and then gave it back to you. Yeah, very strange. But thank you for that. >> Any additional questions on the bill? We do have some appearance forms. We'll start with Steve Smith waving in support. Steve, thank you for being here. Ron Cave, the undersheriff at Leon County Sheriff's Office is also waving in support. Barney Bishop, Florida Smart Justice Alliance, waving in support. Executive Director Alana Zimmer is speaking for. >> Good afternoon. You're recognized. >> Speak. >> Yep. There you go. >> Thank you. Thanks for having me here and allowing me to speak today. I just wanted to briefly take this opportunity to support SB 1580. And just want to let you know, the bill's really not about increasing law enforcement for its own sake. It's about restoring a level of consumer protection for deterrence. It was reduced in 2019 when Florida downgraded the penalty for operating an illegal gambling house from a felony to a misdemeanor. This means the offender has gone from facing up to 15 years in prison to only six months and a $15,000 fine to only 500. Since that change, the commission's seen a significant increase in illegal, unregulated gambling activity across the state. These operations exist entirely outside of consumer safeguards. Floridians who patronize them have no protection against fraud, manipulation, or other criminal activity that often accompanies these underground casinos. The reduced penalties have made these businesses easier for organized operators to sustain, while the risks are shifted to the consumers and surrounding communities. The Florida Gaming Control Commission was created to protect consumers t hrough both regulation and enforcement. Our agents routinely encounter illegal gambling establishments that have seized thousands of unregulated machines, millions of dollars in untaxed proceeds, and brought cases involving organized criminal activity. SB 1580 takes a measured approach by elevating certain offenses in Chapter 849 and clarifying the law. It provides a commission with appropriate tools to deter illegal operators, give clear guidance to the public , and protect Floridians. We respectfully ask for your consideration of SB 1580 as a practical step towards strengthening consumer protections and reinforcing the integrity of Florida's gaming laws. Thank you. >> Thank you. Senator Pizzo, you're recognized for a question. >> Thanks. Sometimes the legislature asks or proposes things that are just people don't have the capacity, the ability to do so. Do you think that the commission is equipped to be able to handle the scenario that I proposed to Senator Martin? >> To take on those deck statements, yes, I do think we're equipped to do that. The agency, as you've known, the commission has grown quite a bit since its inception, and we've been able to manage that through good operations and, honestly, good personnel throughout. So as we've grown, we've been able to handle that. We've also asked in the LBR that we have two more stations this year that we hope to get approved. And so that would set up two more stations, both in the Jacksonville area and in the Southwest Tampa area, to help with those increased penalties. >> Quick follow-up. And I'm not going to have you answer commit to a specific amount of time, but can I ask you, after today's meeting, but before this comes to the floor, that you ask around with your team and come up with an amount of time you think is reasonable for someone submitting a request to get an answer back? >> Absolutely. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And the bill currently has a 60 day for the deck statement. Is that the bill before us today? >> Yes, it's 60 days after it's been all the information has been gathered on what's required. >> Yes. >> Thanks. And to the 60 days, I get it. But we've had some situations with government-run programs and systems where it's the 60 days starts when you're complete. And I remember this from unemployment. You never got to the position where you could be actually fully applied for something. So perhaps we need to talk about what that checklist that objective checklist is for the clock to start ticking on the 60 days. >> I completely agree. >> Thanks for being here. Next, we have Stuart Scott with the American Legion speaking for information. >. Good afternoon. Thank you. Well, yes, Steward's good American Legion. What I just heard, thank you. Yes, we are working with the Bill's sponsor on some great clarification to the point where he actually has another bill up that would help us clarify that. Good solid language would bring this entire thing into a landing, and it would absolutely help the Gaming Commission help on that declaratory statement to say, this is not an expansion of gaming. A simple clarification to what pull tab Bingo looks like. Bingo is all we're talking about. We're not asking to be a casino house where nefarious drugs are run. We're not looking to be that underground entity that they just spoke about. Simply your Veterans Service organization that provides money back into the community. We don't ship it out of state. We don't put it underneath the mattress. It goes directly back into the community through different types of engagements, through scholarships, providing boy state and girl state delegates that sit in these very rooms during their civic week. These are things that we do. And I just ask that we have a fair opportunity when we bring a declaratory statement to the Gaming Commission, that it's met with good faith. With that, we would be behind all of this legislation as it stands now. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is Sean Golder with the VFW Department of Florida, speaking for information. Welcome. You're recognized. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, I'm Sean Golder with Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Florida. Well, we've spoken on this many times. We understand the essence and support the essence of this bill. However, it does not form the clarity that we request to continue our actions. We appreciate the current language, providing VSOs a pathway, and believe that with some additional language, be able to bring clarity to this matter, specific to the petition, as well as to any appeal process that may apply. I thank you for your continued support. Look forward to continuing to work with the sponsor of this bill and with members of the committee. Thank you for supporting your veterans. >> All right, next is Jonathan Zachem, Amusement Machine Association of Florida, speaking against. >> I think I did that backwards. Sorry. Yes, Jonathan Zachem for the Amusement Machine Association of Florida, and thank you, Madam Chair members of the committee. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. There's a lot of good things that are in this bill. When we're speaking against, it's the completed product that we're not quite at. We love the idea, and we appreciate Senator Martin's hard work that's been on this from year one, two, and now three, that we've had a bill or similar to this that we've had before committees. We just want to point out a couple of things that we think need to be tweaked a little bit in order to really get what I think the intention is. And the idea is for not a new game to be approved, but clarity as far as where the line is. Sometimes you hear the term gray market game. There shouldn't be a gray market game. It should be legal or illegal. That's really where the line needs to be. And in establishing this, we have seen some parts that we love the idea of an approval process, and thank you, Senator Pizzo, for mentioning some clarity as far as what's going to be asked for, because we do have some worries as far as what is the completed product that you end up starting a time frame. Being able to have some clarity there would be very helpful. We also saw that again, and I still don't know what parts thereof is supposed to be when you look at Line 16, 13. It's an existing statute, and I know that there was an attempt to try and clarify. But I've spoken before about that term and how it can be interpreted in a negative perspective. Now it seems the definition we've had put forward confirms all those negatives. It actually goes further than to even say the machine itself, but things associated with the machine. And I'd also point out that it doesn't just say slot machine. It says, or device. So you're not just talking about slot machines. You're talking about gaming devices, too. So think in your mind everything that you might see at a slot machine, for a Bild dispenser, for a screen, for a case, every one of those we're making into felonies without some clarification. I get that there are some tweaks that need to happen there, but you could have a situation where a VFW ends up having a game approved. Go through the process. They now end up having something before you, but they still can end up getting arrested for having part of a gaming device because those machines could be cousins to each other, not because it's a guilty device, but because you've got the same screen or buttons or build dispensers or things like that. I know that's not the intention of this bill, and we've spoken to the Senator about that. We also know that's not his intention either, but that has to be fixed before it goes into law. We also saw, I believe, it's right around Line 590 in the approval process. There's a mention of a state testing lab that would review this. That's probably a step that's not needed. If you're talking about an approval process, there are only a few testing labs in the entire country that are accredited testing labs. You can simply make the requirement that you have an accredited testing lab. Put the burden on us. We have no problem doing it. We'll go get a certification report with whatever questions you have that the Gaming Commission can supply to us. We'll take the financial responsibility to it and the time to get the testing lab that's accredited to bring the document forward to you. And instead of having a state-approved testing lab, which would make more time and more money go into it, you can have all the answers on the front. And one more thing that Senator Pizzo said, and then I'll promise I'll stop. He mentioned some idea. >> If you're coding me, you don't have to. You can go on all day. It's fine. >> Okay. Fantastic. We'll be here all afternoon. No, sir. Well, you asked the question as far as some of the games being approved, and I'm going to do a poor job of paraphrasing. But as far as the games that are approved, some process to end up making sure how the games are reviewed afterwards, we would even support going as far as to have a registration process to say that it's gone through a testing that the commission is satisfied with, and it's going to be located in place XYZ with a document that shows what it is. We'd be fine with that. Again, this is not allow for something that is illegal today to be legal. We can't do that. This is simply drawing the line and stating where things that have been vetted and determined to be legal are out there, so no one gets arrested for that process. That's all I had. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Those are all our appearance forms. Is there any debate on the bill? All right. >> I'll waive. >> Senator Martin having waived his clothes, Susan, please call the roll on CS for SB 1580. >> Senator Bernard, Senator Boyd. Senator Bracy Davis. Senator Brodeur. Senator Burgess, Senator Claudius. Senator Mayfield. Vice Chair Pizzo. Chair Bradley. >> Yes. And by your vote, CS for SB 1580 is reported favorably. Thank you. All right, members, we are going to go to the portion of our meeting dealing with our appointments and our confirmation process. And just to lay out how we'll move forward, unless a senator requests a separate vote on an individual appointee, we're going to take one vote at the end of the presentations on all of the appointees, the people who appeared before us in person, as well as every individual that was listed in the agenda and that each member of the committee had an opportunity to call and have brought to us individually, we did not receive any of those requests. So the only folks that will be with us in person are our appointees for the Public Service Commission and the Florida Game and Control Commission. So we will start with tab 1. Miss Anna Ortega. Good afternoon. And before we begin, I will swear you in as a witness. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. You are recognized. >> Thank you. Chair Bradley, Vice Chair Pizzo, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. I am honored to be appointed by Governor DeSantis to serve as a commissioner at the Public Service Commission, an agency where I began my career 15 years ago. During my time at the Commission, I served both on staff and as an advisor to commissioners. As an analyst, I developed a strong foundation in the financial and economic principles that guide utility regulation. Later in the role of chief policy advisor to three commissioners, I advised on complex regulatory matters with a consistent focus on protecting consumers from excessive costs while ensuring utilities can make responsible long-term investments in safe and reliable service. When I served as an advisor to the chairman, I supported agency-wide initiatives to promote transparency and efficiency, to strengthen customer engagement, and to enhance the role of the commission at the state emergencies response. Beyond Florida, I have represented the state nationally through the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, sharing Florida's wins, its best practices, and policy perspectives with other states. Senators, I understand the significance of the commission's decisions for families, for small businesses, and communities across the state. And I take seriously the responsibility to evaluate each matter that comes before us with independence and sound judgment. >> If confirmed, I will approach my role with technical rigor, transparency, and a clear commitment to decisions rooted in the public interest. I respectfully ask for your support, and I'm available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Members, are there any questions for Miss Ortega or Senator Pizzo? >> Thank you. And thanks for being here because I think you were slated to be in DC for something, and you remained here, so that conveys to this committee and certainly to those who knew about that, your sincerity and interest in this. We met, second, third week in November, so you've had a couple of months, and I think I posed what my question might be. We of all who have certain utilities, all of our constituents have a few dollars at the bottom of their bill that goes into a kitty. And it's been nearly impossible for me; I don't know how many times I've asked. Just to let my cities know where they are on the list that we deal with outages on feeders and see the greatest concentration , which is most vulnerable. So here's my question that you knew was coming, for probably 78 days. You were general counsel in your last position, leading up to this appointment. So you've been privy to and prepared a lot of probably the binders for all the commissioners and the background. Billions and billions and billions of dollars have been approved for hardening and for projects that I'm still pretty sure the majority of people at the PSE could never point to on a map. And when we met in November, you were very honest. You were very straightforward. And you remember I pulled out a district map of mine, and I said, billions and billions of dollars were just recently approved. Can you point to a single project on my district map? Today, would you be able to point to somewhere on my district, an actual location of any of these projects? Through the chair. >. Through the chair. Thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to meet with you. And transparently, I have not gone to your district, and I cannot point to a location on the map for you. I've had a lot of discussions with our staff, and I know that you are aware of the level of detail that we do have in-house. I would hope that we can continue to work on this. I know that's not what you want to hear, but I would like to continue to work as a resource with your office to make sure that we give you the information. Also, I make a commitment to you to come to your district and meet with you and your cities to make sure that there's a resolution for any hang-ups that they have on information, and to visit a hardening location. >> Follow up. Most recently, I represent 20 cities, 15 before that, with some overlap in my last district. Miss Ortega, I was on a call with a number of people from a particular utility, and the best they could finally say is somewhere 2032 and2045, we'll get around to the hardening program to come there. This is my question. You would agree, it gives absolutely no ability for reliance for local town mothers and fathers to convey or try to solicit support to go it alone, because the retail division can go ahead and underground and harden, within a few years. It gives absolutely no reliance whatsoever to our cities and our constituents to know that even though they're paying every month for this, they're contributing to this account every single month. They know not where any other work has ever been done because no addresses or locations are given, just grid coordinates, and they have no idea when they get around to it, to make that decision, should we go out of pocket and go it alone and suffer being dozed or whatever? Or will we eventually get around to my city? And I got to ask you, it was 2.5 months ago, and you knew it was, and I said the same thing to Commissioner La Rosa and so on and so forth. Billions, and you would not approve an estimate from a carpenter for a deck project at your home. Why are billions and billions and billions of our dollars, our taxpayer dollars, our ratepayer dollars approving projects that you guys have no idea where they are? Which means? Tell me if I'm wrong. Here's my question. How many members of the PSC, while you were general counsel and now coming up, how many members of PSC have gone out to see the work being done? >> You're free to go back. >> Thank you, Senator. While I was serving as chief advisor, I did actually attend with Commissioner La Rosa. We went to a site visit to look at a hardening project, not in your district, but in a different location. And I can't speak for the other offices on whether or not they have actually visited a location where there has been hardening activities performed. But it is something that I agree with you is important for us to experience and to see the work that is done on the ground to improve reliability on the system. >> Any additional questions? Senator Bernard. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Miss Ortega, thank you very much for being here. I had the chance of asking you questions, as part of the nominating committee, but I do have some follow-up questions that I'd like to ask. As you know, the PSC is tasked with regulating the investor-owned utility services that service most of Floridians in the state. How would you approach your role as a PSC commissioner now that you're no longer on staff to set rates that are fair and affordable to Floridians while also balancing the interests of the regulated utilities? >> You're recognized for an exchange. >> Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Senator, for the question, but also thank you for your support during the nominating council process. I think, as you mentioned, our role is to balance those two competing interests. That is making sure that our state has reliable, secure investments in the grid while protecting consumers from excessive costs. My approach is always going to be to rely on the evidence that's presented to us and to make decisions based off the regulatory framework that exists today. Those are just one way that I would approach balancing those two competing interests. >> Follow up, Madam Chair. Since you said you would rely on the evidence, how would you rely on staff, having been on staff, as you're making your decisions? >> Thank you for the follow-up. It was an interesting experience in my lifetime to work on staff. An advisor and now to be in this role. And so it's great for me to have that institutional knowledge on my own, but also it's given me the experience to really work from the ground up with a variety of staff. And so we have wonderful staff that are very detail-oriented , which I appreciate. So it's really an approach that I take to dealing with staff is to work with them, to ask them questions, ask them the hard questions, and make sure that they're giving me enough information so that I can make those decisions. >> One more question, Madam Chair. >> Sure. >> Just going on the Office of Public Counsel, how do you view the Office of Public Counsel as a PSC commissioner? >> Another great question. I view our relationship very collaboratively. I think I use the analogy of a three legged stool, where the commission is a leg, the Office of Public Counsel is a leg, and the utilities that we regulate is also a leg. And I think that when those three are all strong, that we work the best together to serve Floridians. >> Now, you mentioned three legs. What about Floridians as part of that leg? >> That might be a better analogy, and I'm happy to work on it, but they might actually be the tabletop of the school. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> I just want to follow up on the back when it was a three-legged stool, the public counsel is obviously the state's advocate for Florida's ratepayers before the PSC. And we just had an approved settlement by the PSC where one of the settling parties was not the Office of Public Counsel. They were not a party to that settlement. So my question is, in those situations where the Office of Public Counsel isn't among the settling parties, what role should the PSC have? Should there be heightened scrutiny? Should we have a requirement to strengthen the requirements of good faith to negotiate in good faith with the public counsel? Because that recent settlement did not include one of the legs of the stool. >> Thank you, Chair Bradley. I think, as always, as a commissioner, preface with I wasn't on the commission at the time, so I wasn't a part of that decision-making in that sense. >> But I think I would always want to have as many parties, especially the Office of Public Counsel , as a signatory. I think when they are not a party to a settlement agreement, it's incumbent on the commission to specifically identify and articulate the value to the customers, and specifically the ratepayers. And so, in a sense, yes, I agree there should be probably additional scrutiny, but I think that falls on the commission and the commissioners to articulate well how the settlement ultimately benefits that customer base, as well. Thank you. Any additional questions? All right. Senator Pizzo. >> Thanks. Miss Ortega, you're professional, you're nice, you're smart. One thing I recall as I got up is, I think I went on my phone when you were in my office, and I said, I can look in real time at FPL outages in my district. They're plotted on a map. So certainly the technology is there, even to the consumer to see an outage in real time. But yet, you guys approved billions of dollars worth of projects, and you don't know where they are. I got to ask you this, and I'm asking for an honest answer. I think in earnest, when you left my office and wrote me a nice handwritten thank you note, did you attempt to try to get the information I asked for, and you couldn't get it? Yes or no? >> Yes, I looked at the filings that we received. >> That's a problem. >> Do you want to complete your answer? >> No, I think that's good for the time being. Thank you, Senator. >> Very good. Thank you. And I appreciate you being here. Thank you. >> Do you have any appearance. >> No. All right. Thank you. You're excuse.Also under tab one is Mr. Robert Payne, and Mr. Payne will be appearing by Microsoft Teams. And I see him. Welcome, Mr. Payne, if you will raise your right hand and be sworn in as a witness. All right. Bear with us as we try to get live communication here with Mr. Payne. >> Madam Chair? >> Yes. >> I am a former representative, two parts two things I might say is a lot of us know him, and he's accessible, and we can speak to him. That somewhat separate from Miss Ortega. He's never had service or on such a commission. Are we permitted to perhaps submit a list of questions to a prospective appointee and then wait for answers? >> Sure. I can also attempt to call Mr. Payne and just have him appear. We've done this in other committees. Let's see if he's having technical. Can you hear us? Your microphone is not on. We'll give it one more minute, and then we can. All right. We are going to attempt to figure out our technical issues here, and we will move on to our next. >> All right. There we go. Can you raise your right hand to be sworn in witness? >> Yes. >> Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> You are recognized to address the committee. >> Thank you, Chair Bradley. Senators and Chair Bradley, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to appear by Zoom. I am attending the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in Washington, DC the winter policy. And certainly, when I landed Saturday, I immediately missed Florida because it was nine degrees zero. Senators, I'm getting feedback to you. Currently, we're wrestling with feedback and regulatory challenges in Florida. As you know, population increase, aging, utility infrastructure. New technologies are all apart among those causes, the core causes that we see that we're wrestling with. The Public Service Commission is tasked with protecting ratepayers against excessive costs, while ensuring safety, reliability, and sustainability. I want to make sure that we understand that we are dealing with electric, gas and water utilities and Florida rely on those heavily. And so I've been nominated by the governor to help strike a balance between competing interests. I'm mod by the nomination, and I take the mission of the PSE very seriously. I believe my experience working with almost four decades in electric utility industry, working eight years as a legislator, focusing a lot on electric utility issues, PSC issues. Actually I have given the PSC some tasks as a legislator and working on water policy. And I know that Senator Mayfield is on this committee, and we worked very diligently on the Clean Waterways Act in 2020. Those things give me great insight into energy and watern policy, and I believe they're very valuable to the Commission. So with that, I respectfully request your confirmation, and happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> Members, are there any questions? >> Yeah, one question. >> Senator Pizzo. >> What did we say? Representative. They're always honorable. Honorable Bobby. Senator Pizzo here with a question. >> Yes, sir. >> I think I may have mentioned this last time, I thought maybe you were going to be on agenda or something. Billions of dollars have been approved for projects for hardening that our constituent ratepayers contribute to every month on the bottom of their bill. And I have been unable to get anyone from the PSC to identify where any of these projects and this work has actually been done. And you said earlier in your introduction that you're tasked with making sure that things are cost effective or fair to the ratepayers. Would you agree that if we don't know where any of these projects are, it's tough to see how cost effective or fair they were in pricing? >> Senator Pizzo, if you can hear me, I think you can. Absolutely. I think you as a legislator, legislators set the standard for what we should be doing with the Public Service Commission. And certainly, as I mentioned, the Public Service Commission is following on some of the tasks would be years. I would agree, and I hear you loud and clear. I heard your comments to Commissioner Ortega. I did hear your comments in one of the regulated industries committees previously. I can't defend the utility that represents your area. I can only say that probably there's a lot of hidden projects that are done at those levels. In my experience, I've seen a lot of projects that just aren't visible, but if you're looking for actual costs, we should be able to provide those costs to you through your utility and say, where are these dollars spent? And what are they spent on? And what is the timeframe in which they should be spent so that you can safeguard your community as you have always done? >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Senator Bernard has a question. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Representative Bobby Payne, thank you for appearing virtually. Just to continue the conversation from Senator Pizzo, how would you make sure that the money that's used for Grid Harding are properly invested and used for its intended purpose? >> Thank you for the question, Senator Mack Bernard, and I've enjoyed the opportunity to talk to you in the past, and thank you for your position on the nominating council for my interview. Certainly, as you said and as we heard from Senator Commissioner Ortega, there's something wrong here, and we can't provide that information to you. I think, the commission has the serious task of making sure we know where we're spending taxpayers' money. And we all believe in that, even as legislators, that's one of our main goals to make sure we're not spending money inappropriately and creating excessive cost to our consumers or to our taxpayers. I would do anything I can be visible and talk to engineering groups in our office as well as our staff groups that craft and follow those, and hopefully certainly report those back to you as necessary, attend the hearings and listen to the evidentiary information as we proceed through hearings. >> One more question. Just going back to the Office of Public Counsel, what's your view on the Office of Public Counsel, and in some of these rate settlement cases, do you view them as an indispensable party in these rape cases represent pain? >> Thank you, Senator. I think the OPC gives us knowledge about what we're trying to achieve with ratepayers and utilities so that there's not excessive costs, but that as utilities look at what their future may be and how they cover those costs that they come up with more population in the state with new technologies and infrastructure is diminished. They give us a balance, and say, they give us the Public Service Commission a balance in trying to strive for fairness in setting rates. So I don't see them other than doing their jobs and helping add to the value of what we're trying to achieve in our communities in state. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Anything additional? No. Thank you, Mr. Crane. >> Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senators. >> I will mercifully put down my phone and go back to live presentation. We will take up the conferees on Tab 2. And we'll start with Miss Julie Brown, a reappointment to the Florida Gaming Control Commission. Miss Brown, if you'll please raise your right hand and be sworn in as a witness. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. And you are recognized to address the committee. >> Thank you, Chair Bradley. Vice Chair Pizzo, Senators, it is a pleasure to see you all here today and honor, really to be before this committee. I am here and I stand before you for seeking my reappointment and with your support. I also have the opportunity over the next two years to be serving as chairman of the Florida Gaming Control Commission. First, I do want t