SEERDs March 2026 Update-Focus on State Legislation

It's been a busy month in Tallahassee where our state legislature wrapped up its session, considered many changes in state law, some quite controversial so it could not agree upon many bills, and left more than a few loose ends. There is a strong possibility that the governor will call the legislature back into session shortly because they failed to pass a budget, one of the few "must-do" tasks that our state constitution requires of our lawmakers. The governor also seems to want the legislature to pass a redistricting plan for elections even though redistricting depends on federal decennial census data that we will not have for four more years. And the governor appears eager for the legislature to finish work on a plan to reduce or eliminate real property taxes to be placed on the ballot as a constitutional referendum in the upcoming November mid-term elections.

Here is how those bills we previewed last month in our SEERD Update for January-February fared in Florida's 2026 legislative session. We focus on those that have a direct impact on development, growth management and our quality of life in Counties across the state as well as the Bee Ridge neighborhood.

1.  SB 840 to Correct SB 180 Restricting Local Planning and Growth Management and Prohibiting Changes to Plans and Regulations until 2027.

Here is a summary of provisions that failed in HB 840. HB 840 proposed targeted amendments to §252.422, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 2025‑190, Laws of Florida, which currently restrict local land‑use authority after hurricanes. Because HB 840 failed, all of the following provisions did not become law.

A. Narrowing the Geographic Scope of State Preemption

• HB 840 would have reduced the geographic area in which local governments are restricted after a hurricane.

• Existing law applies broadly to counties and municipalities within a set distance of a hurricane’s track.

• HB 840 proposed tightening that definition so fewer jurisdictions would be automatically classified as “impacted local governments.”

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

B. Allowing Certain Infrastructure‑Related Moratoriums

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

  • Necessary for stormwater or floodwater management

  • Related to potable water supply

  • Necessary for sanitary sewer systems

Result of failure: Local governments remain largely prohibited from imposing moratoriums, even for these infrastructure purposes.

C. Blocking Procedural Delays Added After a Storm

• The bill would have prohibited local governments from changing development review procedures after landfall if those changes:

  • Were intended to extend review timelines, or

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

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

D. Clarifying Exceptions for State and Federal Compliance

• HB 840 would have clarified that post‑hurricane land‑use restrictions do not apply when local governments act:

  • To comply with state or federal law

  • Within an Area of Critical State Concern

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

E. Earlier Sunset of Restrictions for Certain Hurricanes

• For counties listed in federal disaster declarations for Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, HB 840 would have:

  • Ended the special land‑use restrictions on June 30, 2026, instead of 2028

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

F. Limiting Enforcement Against Routine Planning Updates

• HB 840 was intended to allow local governments to:

  • Resume comprehensive plan updates

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

  • Continue long‑term planning unrelated to storm recovery

Result of failure: Many local governments report they remain unable to update comprehensive plans or environmental regulations.

Summary of Practical Effect of HB 840’s Failure:

Because HB 840 did not pass:

• SB 180 (2025) remains unchanged

• Local governments continue operating under broad, state‑imposed limits on land‑use regulation.

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

2. HB 105 Local Government Enforcement Actions

   HB 105 (2026), relating to local government enforcement actions, passed the Florida House by a strong bipartisan vote (104–5) on February 25, 2026, but did not complete the legislative process before adjournment. After House passage, the bill was sent to the Senate, where it was received and referred to the Senate Rules Committee on February 26, 2026. The Senate did not take further action prior to adjournment of the 2026 Regular Session on March 13. As a result, HB 105 did not pass both chambers and did not become law.

   
   

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

   • Allowing individuals or businesses to challenge most local enforcement actions as “unreasonable”

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

   • Exposing cities and counties to mandatory damages (up to $50,000 per action) and attorney’s fees

   • Preempting conflicting local ordinances and enforcement procedures statewide

   
   

   Practical implications of HB 105 failing to pass:

   A. Local governments retain enforcement authority.

   Because HB 105 failed:

   • Cities and counties retain their existing authority to enforce zoning, code compliance, environmental rules, permitting decisions, and local ordinances.

   • Enforcement actions remain governed by current law and existing due‑process protections, rather than a new statewide “reasonableness” litigation standard.

   Practical effect: Local governments can continue enforcing community standards without facing automatic litigation exposure for routine decisions.

   
   

   B. No new litigation pathway against cities and counties.

   HB 105 would have made it much easier and cheaper to sue local governments, with one‑sided fee shifting favoring plaintiffs.

   Because it failed:

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

   • Plaintiffs must continue using existing legal remedies, which carry higher burdens of proof and financial risk.

   Practical effect: Taxpayers are not exposed to a wave of enforcement‑related lawsuits or expanded municipal liability.

   
   

   C. No chilling effect on local enforcement.

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

   Since it did not pass:

   • Local officials are not discouraged from enforcing health, safety, environmental, or land‑use regulations

   • Enforcement decisions can still be made based on public interest, not litigation avoidance.

   Practical effect: Communities retain the ability to proactively address code violations, unsafe properties, and land‑use conflicts.

   
   

   D. Home rule remains intact.

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

   Its failure means:

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

   • Local governments continue tailoring enforcement to local conditions and community priorities.

   Practical effect: Local elected officials—not state courts—remain the primary decision‑makers on enforcement policy.

   
   

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

   For residents, HOAs, and businesses:

   • There are no new tools to challenge enforcement actions outside existing processes

   • Disputes remain handled through current administrative appeals, mediation, or court standards

   Practical effect: No immediate change in how code enforcement, permitting disputes, or compliance actions are handled.

   
   

   Bottom Line:

   HB 105’s failure preserved the status quo. Local governments avoided a major shift that would have increased lawsuits, reduced enforcement certainty, and weakened local control over land use and regulatory compliance.

3.  HB 655 to Amend the Burt Harris Act.

   
   

   • HB 655, dealing with public records and public meetings exemptions for attorney meetings concerning private property rights claims, passed the Florida House unanimously (116–0) on February 25, 2026.

   • The bill was then sent to the Senate, where it advanced through the Senate Rules process, was withdrawn from Rules, placed on the calendar, and passed the Senate unanimously (37–0) on March 4, 2026.

   • On March 4, 2026, HB 655 was ordered enrolled, the final legislative step before presentation to the Governor.

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

   Implications of HB 655 for Local Governments are considerable.

   HB 655 provides local governments with a limited new ability to meet privately with legal counsel to discuss certain private property rights claims, while preserving transparency through delayed disclosure. Specifically, the bill creates a narrow exemption from Florida’s public meetings and public records laws that allows counties, municipalities, and special districts to hold closed attorney‑client meetings during the pre‑suit notice period under the Bert J. Harris, Jr., Property Rights Protection Act.

   
   

   For local governments, this change aligns pre‑litigation property rights discussions with existing litigation strategy exemptions, allowing officials to discuss settlement options and legal risks confidentially before a lawsuit is filed. Under prior law, such discussions were required to occur in public, potentially weakening a local government’s negotiating position and increasing litigation risk.

   
   

   At the same time, HB 655 does not eliminate public oversight. Any closed meeting must be fully transcribed by a certified court reporter, and the transcript and related records become public once the claim is resolved, litigation concludes, or the applicable limitations period expires. Final decisions, settlements, and regulatory actions must still be approved in public meetings.

   
   

   Overall, HB 655 is expected to reduce unnecessary litigation costs, encourage earlier and more realistic settlement discussions, and place local governments on more equal footing with private claimants, while maintaining Florida’s constitutional commitment to open government through delayed disclosure and sunset review of the exemption.

4. SB 354 Blue Ribbon Projects

   
   

   At the conclusion of the 2026 Regular Session, Senate Bill 354 (SB 354) — the “Blue Ribbon Projects” bill — successfully passed the Legislature.

   
   

   What SB 354 does — in practical terms

   
   

   A. Creates a new state‑controlled approval pathway for very large developments.

   SB 354 establishes a special category called “Blue Ribbon Projects” for mega‑developments of at least 15,000 contiguous acres. If a project meets the statutory criteria, it can be approved under this new framework rather than through traditional local land‑use processes.

   Practical effect: Local governments no longer have full discretion over whether or where developments of this scale may occur once a project qualifies under state law.

   
   

   B. Allows qualifying projects to override local comprehensive plans and zoning.

   Once a Blue Ribbon Plan is approved, the development:

   • Does not have to be consistent with local comprehensive plans

   • Does not require rezoning

   • May proceed regardless of existing land‑use designations.

   Practical effect: Long‑standing local growth plans, rural protections, and urban service boundaries can be bypassed for qualifying projects.

   
   

   C. Converts local review into a largely administrative role.

   Local governments still review applications, but their authority is procedurally limited. Approval is required if the application meets the statutory criteria, and denial is only allowed if there are “substantial inconsistencies” with an adopted comprehensive plan — a standard that is narrow and ambiguous.

   Practical effect: Local elected officials have far less ability to shape or reject large projects through policy judgment or public hearings.

   
   

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

   At least 60% of the acreage must be designated as “reserve area.” However, the law allows this reserve land to include:

   • Agriculture

   • Utilities

   • Stormwater facilities

   • Infrastructure corridors

     —not just conservation land.

   Practical effect: Large developments may still significantly alter rural landscapes even while meeting the “reserve” requirement.

   
   

   E. Grants long‑term, vested development rights.

   Once approved, development rights for a Blue Ribbon Project are vested for decades, allowing phased build‑out over time without being subject to future changes in local policy or planning priorities.

   Practical effect: Future local governments and residents have little ability to revisit or adjust the development once approved.

   
   

   F. Shifts infrastructure and service impacts onto local governments.

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

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

   • Long‑term fiscal impacts tied to population growth

     
     

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

   Practical effect: Local governments may bear ongoing service and infrastructure costs for developments they did not fully control.

   
   

   G. Limits the influence of community associations and residents.

   Because approval is largely administrative:

   • Public hearings play a reduced role

   • Community associations cannot rely on zoning or comprehensive plan challenges

   • Opportunities for meaningful public input are narrower.

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

SB 354 significantly shifts land‑use authority from local governments to the state for mega‑developments. It prioritizes large‑scale growth certainty for developers over traditional local planning control, public input, and long‑term community discretion.

5. HB 657 Governing HOAs in Florida

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

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

• HB 657 passed the Florida House on March 5, 2026, on third reading by an overwhelming vote.

• The bill was then received and taken up by the Florida Senate, which allowed the House bill to serve as the final legislative vehicle rather than passing a separate Senate companion.

• HB 657 cleared both chambers before adjournment and was enacted, with an effective date of July 1, 2026.

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

HB 657 significantly restructures how Florida homeowners’ associations are governed, challenged, and dissolved. In practical terms, the law:

·         Creates a legal process to terminate an HOA that may now be dissolved through a court‑approved plan of termination, with defined voting thresholds, appointment of a termination trustee, payment of debts, and distribution of remaining assets.

·         Removes mandatory mediation. Most HOA disputes no longer require pre‑lawsuit mediation. Owners may instead pursue arbitration or court action, streamlining dispute resolution.

·         Authorizes specialized “community association court programs”. Circuit courts may establish HOA‑focused court programs with dedicated judges to hear association disputes, increasing judicial oversight and consistency.

·        . Associations must include (or vote to add) language in their governing documents acknowledging that future changes in state law automatically apply, even without member approval.

·         Increases board accountability and disclosure requirements. The law expands rules on official records, conflicts of interest, elections, inspections, and transparency, strengthening owner access to information and remedies.

Bottom line for HOAs:

HB 657 increases owner leverage, judicial involvement, and state oversight of HOAs, while reducing boards’ insulation from legal challenge and creating a formal path to dissolve associations altogether.

1.