Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Legislative Policy Urban Admin. Committee Meeting Regency ABC
QpVOGUE opc'� oAmz � n Ci SEs Legislative Policy Committee Meeting Urban Administration Committee Friday, June 26, 2015 x 9:00 a.m. — 2:00 p.m. Regency ABC Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport 9300 Jeff Fuqua Blvd. Orlando, FL 32827 (407) 825-1234 FLC Staff Contact: Casey. Cook Florida League of Cities Policy Committee Meeting Friday, June 26, 2015 — 9:00 am -2:00 pm Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport URBAN ADMINISTRATION AGENDA I. Introductions & Opening Remarks..............................Chair Dan Daley, City of Coral Springs H. FLC Policy Committee Process.............................................................. Casey Cook, FLC Staff M. Legislative Process 101/Key Dates ... IV. Potential Priority Issues.......... • Public Records • Backyard Gun Ranges • Homelessness • Vacation Rentals • Medical Marijuana Casey Cook, FLC Staff Casey Cook, FLC Staff V. Open Policy Discussion..................................................................................Member Discussion VI. Federal Issues...................................................................................... Allison Payne, FLC Staff VII. Legislative Key Contacts Program / Advocacy Tips Allison Payne, FLC Staff VIII. Announcements................................................................................................. Chair Dan Daley IX. Closing Remarks................................................................................................ Chair Dan Daley X. Adjournment * Breakfast and Lunch provided by the Florida League of Cities 2015-2016 Florida League of Cities Legislative Policy Committee Urban Administration Staffed by: Casey Cook, Senior Legislative Advocate CHAIR: The Honorable Dan Daley The Honorable Allie Biggs Commissioner, City of Coral Springs Commissioner, City of Pahokee 9551 W. Sample Rd 207 Begonia Dr Pahokee Coral Springs, FL 33065 Pahokee, Fl. 33476 Phone: 954-778-3304 Phone: 561-924-553.4 Email: ddaley@coralsprings.org Email: abiggs@utyofpahokee.com VICE CHAIR The Honorable Richard Block The Honorable Dawn Pardo Councilman, Village of Virginia Gardens Council Chair, City of Riviera Beach 6131 NW 40th Terrace 600 W Blue Heron Blvd Virginia Gardens Florida, FL 33166 Riviera Beach, FL 33404 Phone: 305-979-1772 Phone: 561-8454095 Email: mariestl@comcast.net Email: dpardo@tMcrabch.com The Honorable Christine Brown Councilmember, City of Gulfport MEMBERS: 2401 -53rd Street South The Honorable Vinny Barile Gulfport, FL 33707 Commissioner, Town Of Sewall's Point Phone: 727-893-1000 17 Fieldway Dr. Email- cbrown@mygulfport.us Sewall's Point, FL 34996 The Honorable Gary Bruhn Phone: 772-288-4080 Mayor, Town of Windermere Email: vbarile@sewallspoint.org 108 Forest Street The Honorable Linda Bartz Windermere, FL 34'86 Vice Mayor, City of Port St. Lucie Phone: 407-876-1732 121 SW Port Saint Lucie Blvd. Email• winde eremayor@yahoo.com Port Saint Lucie, FL 34984 The Honorable Roslyn Buckner Phone: 772-871-5159 Councilwoman, City of Miami Springs Email: districtl@cityofpsLcom; 201 Westward Drive bbuchanan@cityofpsLcom Miami Springs, Fl. 33166 Mr. Michael Beedie Phone: 305-985-8375 City Manager, City of Fort Walton Beach Email: bucknerr@tniamisprings-fl.gov; _ 107 Miracle Strip Parkway rbbuckner99@yahoo.com Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548 The Honorable Rick Butler Phone: 850-833-9504 Councilman, City of Pinellas Park �. Email• mbeedie@fwb.org 5635 park blvd Ms. Teresa Begley Pinellas Park, FL 33781 City Clerk, City of Groveland Phone: 727-541-7713 156 S. Lake Ave Email:- buderrlty@aol.com Groveland, FL 34736 Phone: 352-429-2141 Email: teresa.begley@groveland-Egov �4(Lal .& ft,, CDJU (,O v6 torn Ms. Rosemarie Call Mr. Lee Feldman City Clerk/Legislative Liaison, City of City Manager, City of Fort Lauderdale Clearwater 100 North Andrews Ave 112 S Osceola Ave Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 954-828-5959 Phone: 727562-4092 Email: Ifeldman@fordauderdale.gov Email: rosemarie.call@myclearwater.com The Honorable Robert Ganger Mr. Marvin Collins own of Gulf Stream Vi=,rth Assistant City Manager, City of Fort Myers 4Gean B L 2200 Second Street PO Box 2217 OL 33435 Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone: 561-274-6491 Phone: 239-321-7030 Email: twganger@bellsouth.net CIS 334.3 Email-mcollins@cityftmyers.com O Mr. Lee Garner The Honorable Brad Dantzler City Manager, City of Chattahoochee Commissioner, City of Winter Haven 115 Lincoln Drive PO Box 188 PO Box 2277 Chattahoochee, Fl. 32334 Winter Haven, FL 33883 Phone: 850-663-4475 Phone: 863-289-9947 Email: citymgi@£airpoittcnet Email: bdantzler@mywinterhaven.com The Honorable Kimberly Glas-Castro The Honorable Rhonda DiFranco Vice Mayor, Town of Lake Park Mayor, City of North Port 535 Park Avenue 4970 City Hall Boulevard Lake Park, FL 33403 North Port, FL 34286 Phone: 561-758-7551 Phone: 941-429-7073 Email: kglas-Castro@lakeparkflorida.gov Email• rdifranco@cityofnortltport.com The Honorable Mary Hoss The Honorable Brad Doyle Vice Mayor, Town of Ponce Inlet Council Member, Town of Hypoluxo 12 Kelly Bea Court 164 las Brisas Circle Ponce Inlet, FL 32137 Hypoluxo, FL 33462 Phone: 386-761-7731 Phone: 561-585-3034 Email: mirylioss@cfl.rr.com EmaiL• bradagd@yahoo.com Mr. Peter Iglesias The Honorable John Duncan Director of Building, City of Miami Conunissioner, City of Lake Alfred 444 SW 2nd Avenue 10th Floor 155 E. Pomelo St. Miami, FL 33130 Lake Alfred, FL 33850 Phone: 305-416-1102 Phone: 863-291-5747 Email: piglesias@miantigov.com; Email: jduncan@mylakealfred.com DArteaga@miamigov.com The Honorable Betty Erhard The Honorable Joanne Krebs Council Member, City of Brooksville Deputy Mayor, City of Winter Springs 201 Howell Ave Ste 300 1126 East State Road 434 Brooksville, FL 34601 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Phone: 352-540-3810 Phone: 407-699-4391 Emadh berhard@cityofbrooksville.us Email: jkrebs@winterspringsfl.org Ms. Pamela Latimore City Clerk, City of North Miami Beach 17011 NE 19th Ave North Miami Beach, FL 33162 Phone: 305-948-2994 Email: pamela.latimore@dtyttmb.com The Honorable Rita Mack Vice Mayor, City of West Park 1965 South State Road 7 West Park, FL 33023 Phone; 954-889-4156 Email: onepache@yahoo.com The Honorable Bob Margolis Mayor, Village of Wellington 12300 Forest Hill Road Wellington, FL 33414 Phone: 561-791-4000 Email: nnargolis@wellingtonfLgov The Honorable Scott Maxwell Vice Mayor, City of Lake Worth 7 North Dixie Highway Lake Worth, FL 33460 Phone: 561-586-1730 Email:- smaxwell@lakeworth.urg The Honorable Dominick Montanaro Vice Mayor, City of Satellite Beach 565 Cassia Blvd Satellite Beach, FL 32937 Phone: 321-501-4316 Email: Dmontanaro@satellitebeach.org The Honorable Lenny Nesta Councilmember, City Of Cape Coral PO Box 150027 Cape Coral, FL 33915 Phone: 239-242-3232 Email: lnesta@capecoraLnet The Honorable James Norwood Commissioner, City of Palatka 201 N. 2nd street Palatka, FL 32177 Phone: 386-329-0944 Email: Jnorwood@gapac.com The Honorable Karl Nurse Councilmember, City of St. Petersburg P.o. Box 2842 St. Petersburg, FL 33731 Phone: 727-572-9311 Email: Karl.nurse@stpete.org The Honorable Jean Peelen Comtnission Vice -Chair, City of Holmes Beach 6400 Flotilla Drive '116 Holmes Beach, FL 34217 Phone: 941-896-582' Email- jpeelen@holmesbeachfl.org The Honorable Lesa Peerman Commissioner, City of Margate 5790 Margate Blvd. Margate, FL 33063 Phone: 954-935-5326 l;mail: cityclerk@margatefl.com The Honorable Michael Petruccelli Councilman, Town of Indian Shores P.O. box 1041 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 Phone: 727 422 6644 Email: sunsandscript@yahoo.com The Honorable Patricia Plantamura Councilor, City of Seminole 10013 118th Way Seminole, FL 33772 Phone: 727-392-2193 Email:- pplantam@hotmail.com Mr. Richard Radcliffe Executive Director, Palm Beach League of Cities P.O. Box 1989, Governmental Center \Fest Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-346-5085 Email: nadchffe@pbcgov.org Ms. Beth Rawlins President, Florida Business Watch 2845 Chelsea Place S. Clearwater, FL 33'59 Phone: 727-79'-9333 Email• Rawlins@tloridabusinesswatch.com The Honorable Kelly Reid Council Member, Town of Bay Harbor Islands 9665 Bay Harbor Terrace Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Phone: 305-335-1087 Email kreid@bayharborislands.org; kellyreidbiti@gmail.com The Honorable Peggy Rice Vice Mayor, City of Daytona Beach Shores 2990 S Atlantic Avenue Daytona Beach Shores, FL 32118 Phone: 386-763-5373 Email: price@dtyofdbs.org The Honorable Jamie Robinson Vice Mayor, City of Largo City of Largo PO Bos 296 Largo, FL 3377-9 Phone: 727-587-6700 Email: jarobins@largo.com The Honorable Patrick Roff Councilman, City of Bradenton 101 Old Main Street 101 Old Main Street Bradenton, FL 34205 Phone: 941-932-9453 Email: patrickroff@cityofbr:tdenton.com The Honorable Cal Rolfson Council Member, City of Mount Dora 510 North Baker Street Mount Dora, FL 32757 Phone: 352-552-4200 Email: rolfsonc@cityofmomtdora.com The Honorable Donald Rosen Deputy Mayor, City of Sunrise 10770 West Oakland Park Blvd. Sunrise, FL 33351 Phone: 954-253-1506 Email: drosen@sunrisefl.gov The Honorable Greg Ross Mayor, City of Cooper Cin' PO Box 290910 City Hall Cooper City, FL 33329 Phone: 954-434-4300 X260 Email: mayor_ross@coopercityFL.org Mr. Mark Ryan City Manager, City of Indian Harbour Beach 2055 S. Patrick Dr. Indian Harbour Beach, FL 32937 Phone: 321 773-3181 Finail mryan@indianharbour.org The Honorable Scot Sasser Mayor, Town of Lauderdale -By -The -Sea 4501 N. Ocean Drive Lauderdale -By -The -Sea, FL 33308 Phone: 954-640-4200 Email:- scotsasser@lauderdalebythesea-fl.gov The Honorable Ralph Schoenherr Councilman, City of South Daytona PO box 214960 South Daytona, FL 32121 Phone: 366-566-7451 Email• Rschoenherr@southdataona.org The Honorable Robert Shalhoub Mayor, Town of Lake Clarke Shores 1701 Barbados Road Lake Clarke Shores, FL 33406 Phone: 561-762-1969 Email- rshalhoub@lakeclarke.org, dclark@lakecL-irke.org The Honorable Willie Charles Shaw Mayor, City of Sarasota 1565 Fust Street Room 101 Sarasota, FL 34236 Phone: 941-954-4115 Email: diane.taylor@sarasoragov.com Ms. Audrey Sikes City Clerk, City of Lake City 205 North Marion Avenue Lake City, FL 32055 Phone: 386-719-5756 ]-.mail: sikesa@lcfla.com The Honorable Iris Siple Vice Mayor, Cin. of Pembroke Pines 10100 Pines Blvd Pembroke Pines, F7.33026 Phone: 954-436-3266 Email: isiple@ppiues.com The Honorable Suzy Sofer Commissioner, City of Belleair Bluffs 2747 Sunset Blvd Belleair Bluffs, FL 33770 Phone: 727-5B4-2151 Email suzyfl@aol.com Mr. Mike Staffopoulos Asst. City Manager, City of Largo City of Largo PO Box 296 Largo, FL 33779 Phone: 727-587-6700 Email• MStaffop@largo.com The Honorable Myra Taylor Mayor, City of Opa locks 3400 NW 135th Street Building B Opa locks, FL 33054 Phone: 305-953-2800 Email• mtaylor@opalockafl.gov Mr. William Thrasher Manager, Town of Gulf Stream 100 Sea Road Gulf Stream, FL 33483 Phone: 561-276-5116 Email: bthrasher@gulf-stream.org The Honorable Kenneth Thurston Commissioner, City of Lauderhill 5811 W. Oakland Park Blvd Lauderhill, FL 33313 Phone: 954-730-3018 Email: cdixon@lauderhill-fl.gov Mr. James Titcomb Town Manager, Town of Melbourne Beach 507 Ocean Avenue Melbourne Beach, FL 32951 Phone: 321-724-5860 Email townmanager@melbo.unebeachfLorg The Honorable Teresa Watkins Brown Councilwoman, City of Fort Myers 2210 Second Street Fort Myers, FL 33902 Phone: 239-321-7001 Email: rwatkinsbrown@cityftmyers.com I C The Honorable Annette Wexler Commissioner, Town of Pembroke Park 3150 SW 52 Ave Pembroke Park, FL 33023 Phone: 9549664600 Email:- awexler@townofpembrokepark.com op` p4UE of 2015-2016 League's Legislative Policy Process Q1 nre Each year, municipal officials from across the state volunteer to serve on the League's Legislative policy committees. Appointments are typically a one-year commitment and involve developing the League's Legislative Action Agenda which addresses priority issues that are most likely to affect daily municipal governance and local decision making during the upcoming legislative session. Policy committee members also help League staff understand the real world implications of proposed legislation and are asked to serve as advocates throughout the legislative process. In an effort to get a broad spectrum of ideas and to more fully understand the impact of League policy proposals on rural and urban cities of all sizes, it is ideal that each of Florida's cities be represented on one or more of the League's Legislative policy committees. Due to potential Sunshine Law issues, only one elected official per city can be represented on each committee, but a city could have both an elected and a non -elected city official on each of the five policy committees. League policy committee appointments are confirmed in writing by the League president each year. With the Florida Legislature convening the 2016 Legislative Session in January instead of March, the policy committee meetings will commence in June instead of September. This accelerated timeline means the proposed priorities adopted by each policy committee will then be submitted to the Legislative Committee and then ultimately the FLC membership for consideration and adoption at the FL.CAnnua! Conferrnee instead of the FLCL,%Ulatix Conference. These priorities then become the League's Legislative Action Agenda. The Legislative Policy Committee Meeting Dates for 2015-2016 are: • June 25-26, 2015 — Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport • July 17, 2015 — Hyatt Regency Orlando International Airport • August 13, 2015 — Orlando World Center Marriott (FLC Annual Conference) • November 19, 2015 — Embassy Suites Orlando Lake Buena Vista (FLC Legislative Conference) • August 11, 2016 — The Westin Diplomat, Hollywood (FLC Annual Conference) Policy committee members are expected to attend the committee meetings scheduled in person. While agendas and materials are shared with committee members in advance, the League is unable to accommodate requests to participate via conference call or webinar. In addition, the League is unable to reimburse travel costs. If you are interested in serving or learning more, please contact Holly McPhail at (850) 222- 9684, ext 3604 or hmgphail@flcides.com. The Florida League of Cities' Legislative Policy Development Process More than 3,000 bills are filed each year and League staff typically tracks more than 800 for potential impact on municipalities. Florida's legislative session is regularly scheduled for 60 days a year. Because of this compressed timeframe, it is important for city officials and League staff to focus on a limited number of legislative priorities and ensure die priorities: • Adhere to the League's paramount goal of preserving municipal home rule powers; • Are issues that directly affect the functions of municipal government (as opposed to affecting municipal citizens generally); • Are issues of statewide, rather than local or regional, interest; • Require state legislative action rather than seek changes to constitutional or federal law; and • Do not seek legislative authorization for something that municipalities already possess the power to do under their home rule powers, if they so choose. The League's purpose is to focus on those legislative issues most likely to affect daily municipal governance and local decision making. The Municipal Home Rule Powers Act and the Florida Constitution provide that cities in Florida have the authority to govern themselves locally, independent of state control. Preserving Home Rule, educating citizens on this valuable right and maintaining a focus on those issues that directly affect self -governance, service delivery and the quality of life of each municipality are essential goals of the Florida League of Cities. Legislative Policy Committees The business of the League is conducted by its Board of Directors, but the League's legislative policies are shaped through a grass roots process beginning with recommendations from "Legislative Policy Committees" and cuhninating in adoption of a "Legislative Action Agenda" by the League's general membership. Legislative Policy Committee members, their chairs and vice -chairs are appointed each year by the League president. Any city official is eligible to serve on a Policy Committee. Appointments are usually based upon a city official's support and advocacy of the League's adopted Legislative Action Agenda, as well as their participation at meetings, Legislative Action Day and other legislative -related activities. The Policy Committees typically meet in August, September, October and November to discuss potential legislative priorities. There are currently five standing legislative policy committees: Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee: This committee addresses policies specific to municipal concerns with coastal management, energy, environmental and wetlands permitting, hazardous and toxic wastes, recycling, solid waste collection and disposal, storm -water, wastewater treatment and reuse, water management, water quality and quantity. Finance, Taxation and Personnel Committee: This committee addresses municipalroles in general finance and tax issues, Home Rule revenues, infrastructure finding, insurance, local option revenues, pension issues, personnel and collective bargaining issues, revenue sharing, tax and budget reform, telecommunications and workers' compensation. Growth Management and Economic Affairs Committee: This committee addresses policies specific to municipal concerns with community redevelopment, economic development, growth management and land use planning issues, annexation, eminent domain, tort liability and property rights, as well as ethics and elections. Transportation and Intergovernmental Relations Committee: "phis committee addresses municipal concerns relating to transportation and highway safety, as well as affordable housing (and foreclosures), billboards, charter counties, charter schools, gaming, rights-of-way and sunshine law. Urban Administration Committee: This committee addresses municipal concerns with building and fire safety codes, building codes and construction, code enforcement, emergency management, homeland security, public meetings, public property management, public safety, purchasing and special districts. The League encourages every city to participate in legislative policy committees and strives to balance the committees' with respect to geographic location and the size of the cities represented. In reality, not every city is able to participate and, therefore, it is possible the pohcy committees may not be truly reflective of the full diversity of the League's membership. The Legislative Committee can help balance any potential imbalances in policy committee representation. The Legislative Committee A key component to the final adoption of the League's Legislative Action Agenda is the Legislative Committee. The Legislative Committee is comprised of each legislative policy committee chair and the chairs of the other standing committees; the president of each local and regional league; the presidents of several other municipal associations; chairs of the municipal trust boards; and several at - large members appointed by the League president. These officials typically meet at the Legislative Conference to review the recommended priorities of the five Legislative Policy Committees. For 2015- 2016, the Legislative Committee will meet during the Annual Conference. The role of the Legislative Committee is to provide a "big picture" perspective to ensure that issues are truly representative of statewide municipal interests, not duplicative or in conflict, and are timely and properly presented. The Legislative Committee may limit, reject, prioritize or tank recommendations. The policy priorities as adopted by the Legislative Committee are then recommended to the general membership for approval as the League's Legislative Action agenda. The Business Session The proposed Legislative Action Agenda is then brought before the full general membership for consideration, possible amendment and adoption at a Business Session during one of the League's conferences. The general membership may limit, reject, prioritize or rank recommendations. Typically, the Business Session is held on the final day of the Legislative Conference but for 2015- 2016 will occur during the Annual Conference. The Advocacy Committee The Advocacy Committee is a standing committee that is responsible for building support in the Legislature for the Action Agenda adopted by the Florida League of Cities. Members are responsible for making direct contact with state elected officials on behalf of the policy issues and provide strategic direction on the Leagues' lobbying initiatives. The Advocacy Committee is appointed by the League president. The Resolutions Committee The Resolutions Committee is appointed by the League president and meets during the League's Annual Conference in August. The composition of this committee is similar to the Legislative Committee. The League's by-laws provide that only state legislative issues are to be considered by the Legislative Policy Committees and federal and state constitutional and commemorative issues are to be considered by the Resolutions Committee. Resolutions are often suggested or submitted by the League's Board of Directors, local and regional leagues, individual municipalities or municipal associations. Federal Issues The Federal Action Strike Team (FAST) is a standing committee that addresses federal issues that affect municipalities. FAST members are appointed by the League president according to congressional district and each member works closely with the League and the National League of Cities to influence federal legislation affecting cities in Florida. EM 2015 -2016 FLC Legislative Committees Energy, Environment & Natural Transportation & Intergovernmental Resources (Ryan Matthews) Relations (Megan Sirjane-Samp/es) • coastal management • affordable housing/foreclosures energy • billboards • environmental and wetlands • charter counties permitting • charter schools general utilities • gaming hazardous and toxic wastes • rights-of-way • recycling • sunshine law solid waste collection and disposal • transportation and highway safety • stormwater wastewater treatment and reuse Urban Administration water management (Casey Cook) water quality and quantity • building & fire safety codes . building codes and construction Finance, Taxation & Personnel • code enforcement (Amber Hughes) • emergency management general finance & tax issues • homeland security home rule revenues • public meetings infrastructure funding . public property management • insurance • public records local option revenues • public safety pension issues • purchasing • personnel and collective bargaining • special districts issues revenue sharing tax and budget reform • telecommunications workers' compensation Growth Management & Economic Affairs (David Cruz) community redevelopment economic development • growth management and land use planning issues annexation • eminent domain • tort liability property rights • ethics/elections Public Records The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS public records reform to discourage or eliminate schemes designed to generate violations of public records laws as well as limit harassing or unreasonable public records requests. Background: Cities, as well as numerous other governmental entities, are required to comply with the public records laws in Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. While every city incurs some level of expenses in complying with public records requests, numerous cities frequently incur extraordinary or unreasonable costs. The reasons for these extraordinary costs can vary, but include: records requests clearly designed to be harassing in nature (either by the frequency of requests or the extent of any particular request); requests designed to generate a technical violation of the public records laws; and requests designed to do nothing more than serve as the basis of a lawsuit, typically with offers to the city to settle and pay attorney's fees and costs. Several individuals and entities around the state have developed a "cottage industry" designed to produce technical violations of the public records laws. These individuals have a standard method of operation. They will frequently enter into a public office, or the office of a private entity• providing services to the public entity, and demand to inspect frequently remote documents (such as insurance coverage documents). The persons working in these offices may not be used to receiving public records requests, and are clearly not the statutory designated custodian of public records (for cities, the custodian of public records is typically the city clerk). In attempting to comply with the public records request, these persons may technically violate the public records laws (asking the requestor for their name and contact number, asking the requestor to sign an entry log, staring that they believe the information requested is not subject to the public records laws, etc.). Typically, the next communication from the person making the public records request is service of a lawsuit alleging violations of the public records laws. Undoubtedly, these lawsuits are then followed by a request for settlement, demanding attorney's fees and costs. Various individuals and entities have filed thousands of public records requests and hundreds of lawsuits. As the attached article from a Florida Bar publication indicates, a judge in Duval County denied a request for attorney's fees in a public records lawsuit and called a plaintiff's actions "a baiting gesture meant to achieve personal financial gain; not a legitimate request for public records," and "nothing more than a scam." Under section 119.0701, Florida Statutes, private businesses that enter into contracts with public agencies to provide various services become subject to die public records laws. -Many private businesses have also fallen victim to the scam identified above. These schemes are designed to do nothing more than raid the public treasury at the expense of tax payers. Examples of various issues with public records laws: • Town of Gulf Stream: Since 2013, Town has received 42 different public records lawsuits. Expended over 5350,000 in litigation defense. Received over 1,500 public records requests since 2013 (primarily from the same several requestors). • Two related "public records" seeking entities have filed more than 140 lawsuits in 27 counties widen one year (against governmental entities and those having contracts with governmental entities). • A "public records" seeking individual claims to have filed almost 300 lawsuits over a seven year period. • The Palm Beach State Attorney's office received over 1,300 public records requests from die same several requestors. • The following governmental entities have been named defendants in recent public records litigation (settlement amounts noted): Municipalities Greenacres Orchid Adands Gulf Stream Orlando (Fire) Aventura Hallandale Beach Otter Creek Baldwin Hialeah Palatka (Police) Boynton Beach (Police) Jacksonville Beach Palm Coast Cape Coral: 512,500 limey Biscayne Pembroke Pines (2) Coral Gables (Police) Lake Park: S4,000 Pinecrest Cutler Bav: 52,000 Lakeland (Police) Punta Gorda Dade City La,N ton Sarasota Eagle Lake: $10,000 Maccicnny Southwest Ranches (2) Eustis (Police): $1,500 Mianti (3) (2 -City; 1 -Police) St. Cloud Fernandina Beach: $5,000 Miami Beach (2) St. Petersburg (2) Florida City Miami Lakes: 53,000 Tampa (3) (2 -City; 1 -Police) Fort Myers Naples Venice: 53,600 Fruitland Park New Port Richey Zephyrhills (2) Counties Mian -ii -Dade (4) Palm Beach Clay (BOCC, Police, Water & Pasco Collier Sewer Dept) Pinellas Highlands: $9,000 Orange Volusia Lake Osceola (2) (County, Supervisor of Elections) School Boards Hardee INliami-Dade Broward Hendry Orange Charlotte 1 lillsborough Oseola Clav Lee Polk (3) Duval Manatee St Johns Flagler Martin: 530,000 St. Lucie Sheriffs Hardee Osceola Broward I lillsborough (2) Palm Beach Charlotte Lake Pasco (2) Clay (2) Lee Pinellas Flagler Manatee St. Johns " C i t y o f C o o p e r C i t y : O n e i n d i v i d u a l h a s m a d e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 0 0 p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t s i n o n e y e a r , r e q u i r i n g e x t e n s i v e t i m e b y c i t y a t t o r n e y , c i t y m a n a g e r , c i t y c l e r k , a n d o t h e r m a n a g e r s t o p r o p e r l y r e s p o n d . C i t i e s o f B e i l e a i r B e a c h , G r e e n w o o d , I n d i a l a n t i c a n d n u m e r o u s o t h e r s h a v e r e c e i v e d p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t s f o r c i t y p e r s o n n e l i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m 2 0 0 8 - 2 0 1 3 , s p e c i f i c a l l y s e e k i n g n a m e , p o s i t i o n , m a i l i n g a d d r e s s , s a l a r y , e t c . i n a s p e c i f i e d f o r m a t . " C i t y o f O l d s m a r : A f r e q u e n t p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t o r s e n d s l o n g e m a i l s a n d e m a i l s t r i n g s c o n t a i n i n g p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t s " e m b e d d e d " w i t h i n t h e e m a i l s . C u r r e n t S t a t u s : C S / C S / S B 2 2 4 ( S i m p s o n ) a n d C S / C S / H B 1 6 3 ( B e s h e a r s ) a d d r e s s t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s l a w s w h e n p r i v a t e e n t i t i e s e n t e r i n t o c o n t r a c t s t o p r o v i d e s e r v i c e s t o p u b l i c a g e n c i e s . T h e c o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n t h e p r i v a t e e n t i t y a n d t h e p u b l i c a g e n c y a r e r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e a n o t i c e g i v i n g t h e c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r t h e a g e n c y ' s c u s t o d i a n o f p u b l i c r e c o r d s . T h e b i l l s p r o v i d e a p r o c e s s t h a t m u s t b e f o l l o w e d t o a w a r d a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a n d c o s t s t o a n i n d i v i d u a l c l a i m i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s l a w s . T h e p a r t y f i l i n g t h e a c t i o n m u s t p r o v i d e w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , i n c l u d i n g a s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e p u b l i c a g e n c y h a s n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e r e q u e s t , b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l t o t h e p u b l i c a g e n c y ' s c u s t o d i a n o f p u b l i c r e c o r d s a t l e a s t e i g h t b u s i n e s s d a y s ( u n d e r C S / C S / S B 2 2 4 ) o r t h r e e b u s i n e s s d a y s ( u n d e r C S / C S / H B 1 6 3 ) b e f o r e f i l i n g t h e a c t i o n . T h e p a r t y m u s t a l s o p r o v i d e t h i s n o t i c e t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r i f t h e c o n t r a c t o r i s a n a m e d p a r t y i n t h e a c t i o n . C S / C S / S B 2 2 4 w a s a m e n d e d o n s p e c i a l o r d e r c a l e n d a r t o r e q u i r e t w o d a y s ' n o t i c e t o t h e c u s t o d i a n o f p u b l i c r e c o r d s o f a r e c o r d s r e q u e s t b e f o r e a p e r s o n a l l e g i n g a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s l a w m a y o b t a i n a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s a n d c o s t s . T h u s t i m e p e r i o d i s n o t a r e q u i r e m e n t t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t , b e c a u s e , d e p e n d i n g u p o n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , f u l f i l l i n g a p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t m a y t a k e l e s s o r m o r e t h a n t w o b u s i n e s s d a y s . R a t h e r , t h e t i m e p e r i o d i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o v i d e t h e c u s t o d i a n o f p u b l i c r e c o r d s w i t h n o t i c e t h a t t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s r e q u e s t h a s b e e n m a d e , a n d t a k e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t e p s t o f u l f i l l t h e r e q u e s t . C S / C S / S B 2 2 4 n o w r e q u i r e s p u b l i c a g e n c i e s t o p r o v i d e t r a i n i n g t o i t s e m p l o y e e s , t h e e x t e n t o f w h i c h i s u p t o t h e a g e n c y , o n t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s l a w s . T h e s e n a t e b i l l a l s o r e q u i r e s t h e a g e n c y t o p o s t d i e c o n t a c t i n f o r m a t i o n f o r d i e c u s t o d i a n o f t h e p u b l i c r e c o r d s i n a n y b u i l d i n g i n w h i c h p u b l i c r e c o r d s a r e s e n t , r e c e i v e d , c r e a t e d , m a i n t a i n e d , a n d r e q u e s t e d . C S / C S / S B 2 2 4 p a s s e d t h e S e n a t e u n a n i m o u s l y . C S / C S / H B 1 6 3 p a s s e d t h e H o u s e G o v e r n m e n t O p e r a t i o n s A p p r o p r i a t i o n s S u b c o m m i t t e e a n d i s n o w i n t h e H o u s e S t a t e A f f a i r s C o m m i t t e e . R e v i s e d : 4 / 8 / 2 0 1 5 C o n t a c t : R y a n M a t t h e w s , A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , L e g i s l a t i v e A f f a i r s 8 5 0 . 2 2 2 . 9 6 8 4 r m a t d i e i v s @ f l c i t i e s . c o m C a s e y C o o k , S r . L e g i s l a t i v e A d v o c a t e 8 5 0 . 2 2 2 . 9 6 8 4 c c o o k @ f l c i t i e s . c o m THE FLORIDA BAR 711E RaRICK 9PR H++ R Evert, The Florida ^car .._,. •",tea!+.,,. The Florida Bar News Ar.•rani=_itg Ratr� • Classif�ds • ,a!tnrre s Fzchan;e • Ar -n.. <-.. • `:,Iu;:;rr.r,- •. daumal Gebruaty it 2015 © tic A] HCME A new scam: Public records shakedown Bills filed to prevent more abuses By Tan Pudlow Sensor Editor strapping a video comera around his neck, Jeffrey Marczs ;ray encere, tre off ce! :�r _ -nz:,nn Sec ai services or Mor[heasc =r'I a on June 16, and secretly recorded tonversautis with empiayaes Tma room was wtere Lecpiz .:.,eeu of huuerrg or mental heaiC� services or those suffering from AIDS waited for help. The salf•deocribed `civil rights activity sa^d Ica only wanted to document Cis regc+est rel c L,W�ic rncorrh, and when Gray clalmac -.- war denied those public reLOrds, he filed a lawsuit against the noonprrdlt corppraTion tWo lveekS tater; Oil Juiy 1. But Fourtt+ Grcult Judge Jack M. Schemer called Gray's ncuons •a aaiang gesture meant to achieve personai Onarciai gain; not legitimate request for public records,' and "nothing mere man a scam According to Judge schemer's December I Final Order Denyirrg Relief Under Rubric Records Act. Gray ri .- neer a plaintiff In Ia Separate 2014 lawsuits mwuiVmg pu^Lc records reu-uests .r Duea! Cuunty. Abraham Snakfeh of Tampa, -is one a lie lawyers that flies these suits on behalf of Gray," and shal.7C- ays Gray when he recovers eKbme}'S 'ens til mese cases, ac:arding to me lunge's order tear also oetaled mat Shakfeti "has filed SPprczlmataly 1 3 lawsuits seeking public *cords an banalf of Gray," T tae Fltaldn Lenter fo%?!rvestigntlnr Rrn�eHinq, a nonprofit news of liallizahnn, round mune than 140 1a1r5nil; filed in 27 Courture r !lie Citizens •^.we:ercss fLon .atinn and 54te- c%qa n:7aCor! our Public Rtcafds UC According to the FFR, [a -.%-Vers hrom Cr O'BOyle lel'! F'r sl -'l"119 C, -.e same aoc•ress as tna to Jnaabon, Were used In a�: of the lawsuits reviewed South Rurido millienaire InIartm il5crie `n.: -•»r" 'he Caaens=+t.•arenes; :',,ndebon In ]an•,ary 2014, aur, lc,nrc h- son, Jonathan, a Pennsylvania lawyer not licensed in Ronda. MC.000 t:, start .hl --Bay a is++ n a few weeks later, accord,ny ca the Milt- Both entities were housed)n the office of Ma:;in o'BOyI-- s real estate e Beach Th. Florida Bar Is inve$tigatIN member's of me ia'N firm, and C"+E f3_IH1atian has a nie at>"IaVons. The lawsuits took, advantage of confusion surrounding a vear-old:mange tb Fk inda's pial,[ records jaw rege:l.-,ng that _vete businesses contracting with public agencies must Provloe tnCii" •erto dg fol public Inspecbon. The pl'rdawry practice Invo€wpd r- numerous public records requests against public and private agencies, and then suing for noncompliance with those requests. In reaction to news of the public records shakedowns of business owners who contract with state and local governments, Sen, Vd:".On Simpson, R -Trilby, and Rep. Halsey Seshears, R-Mbnbcello, filed Senate Bill 24 and Nouse Sill 163. 'litany F1rx-.da tssiness owners convict with and yerfomf services for egenues,' Simpson said, 'O:e too s:rnmer, I learned that idose Flcr lda, inns l'auak aro apiamcnlrvj wino of terse buunecsas to nm..• public records requests to only ,ne p.vnoin : rert!rq conftH2On tar tiro ni,N ne45 owners that IeaC:'a ' lawsu:tf to dmraln Cosh serrllntant5 Sim 40r, CaIIer1 lack IS Un[r.i•'ed bt ' < ik ne.of trait`+!^g,'. ,I am an uawa.v--.-:y zayrr: [ar . ' .,:: «. ,« »ire ;wtA, acc.atc cwt _� e:hztnt can maid their gosarrmerI ncruuntable,' S,nlpvs n saic 7..•,r s. , ase, tho..fn, ,f �s Cfeaf r.vI It, ,: iwl of pr. vale crhteat and hardwor,ing btra nras owne,s x r L,, P a,,plrC 5y sornt .at -.:r Upaim.ti ;>rorVe ueM on getting nifi oft a n.-:• scam," In the Case of Jerrrey Marcus Gray vs. "frreren Social services of Sartneert Ronda. 1rs , according to the fudge's order, Gl av e:w to Inspect and nttougrairn the general insurance oulicy Of LSSgreen fafetfed to a Se.COfAC ff•nP Oyel, he 40,1W for proof t4 ... , required by the contract weir Use 6epar1rhent of Ch, Wron ane roc minas Sen'lcw Toa- vr•.pinyee aria he bol.avvd fruit Wruc•.r nat subra to discinsure aceardng to Craprr II% noridas IaUtl," Records ACL trrd 7,r ay get at rrrrtn UCr The cons Ai - ouestrwt Is that LiLneren Social Serviul would proartde yo„m sen ces to retuilp" 1-.r.rYr •n rr,.vel rn:,ntn Gray left the otitce Without providing contact intormaboand he Testred chat he wanted -=nc'rrm Ry." The next contact Lutheran Social Service'C had with dray sues When he hied the lawiS+t on July I "Oddly, Gray did not identify ,n Ms initial complaint toe document that Ir" claimed were denw-f ram,` ludge Schemer w!ote in ru% ordtr, "At a preliminary hearing held September I. 2014, Shakfeh, with Gray btsidt flim, was u,ewrr whether ar not ivs client wanted m. �r than what had already mean provided to tum. Nevertheless, 'SS offered a.no the co -at ordered Shak feh and Gray an opportunity to inspect documents - "The moons to reGueal pubic :eccrdn antler Chapti, I I r. F- - do Sea`: es ,:'.Ian.! In• :tont .w!•r cr flewnab a and a fine;rent aik - the statute Grey. In ar arIVII to ambush LS i. PD 17(i C r 1:; ;''." a -v +d"ante at .;i Mry -c:-rr .' :.s demands, pµr,asi. r ':. provide any G0.Mact Inlartnaton. and purpoSw)y apJea,r . c ..- _ _v I n4; 4. day m hzr.>s or an attorneys Ire. I, +. snared With Gray. It was nothing more Inas a scam. - Said Rep, Biblio 'bi each case that I've rev,twred• ppvv+bane tine •r.wi:u !'wt a -e tram; requested, I -stead simply asking tela recoedt custodian at, t11. Vitt agency, ♦Ron" -lehie ter' <,r e.ef w•Use n6midatirt9 indwirlualt wr• cameras go ante private property and make demands or office staff that tsve had rr tra'.r,. nj, :r ow pabiic ,ecu,ds laws' Said Beth Rawlins, president of Florida Business Water, a ncnprof,t trade assocfabor for iiio-re--rr;trf contractors: -Sxh abuse: cost Minfsses info tasoaytrs nufiareds dl Illdusatsds of distals' minty (oat should have Mel, %heel dta.*eg servictt to c Weec This bill preteC"r the C,ti2e'i5 right to know, Wfu:e alto pRYteK:tJ :ont,*Ctors from Me actors scamm;ny tfk system It line t+w,r <:. poCke6.- Tie proposed legislation requires a Darty fii;ty action to ',,ui ::e wt -;.en notice or the p,rbl:r rec.fds reWr%L inrluchng a state,,.. that the contractor has not complied with She rear sst. try cerolwd mmt r, the pssblic age^CY's cuscap•ar•. of puhnC WWd: at hast • . business clays before filing the action. and provide such nomcts to the corroactne 0 tie contractor :s a named party ,n Cie achr,.n. Borttara Peterson, prosident of it* Fust Amendment Founeatior, who is on FOR board meni6er, sxpttssecl concerns to the FGIR treat mer propasad leglQagOn may limit onsets to public records foo roverefy Net ronin o pWicins t* 'list a Certified letter rn,&I be Sar; rive days behove filing a lawsuit and proving that n rimer vii !ti ny die, not comply w.Ih n rpmr , tejr eu ,w..,..a. of •ae romp n=-, ." •.� POTENTIAL PRIORITY ISSUES FOR THE URBAN ADMINISTRATION MEETING The Town of Gulf Stream will once again advocate sensible reform of the Public Records Act as a priority legislative initiative benefiting countless Florida municipalities, public institutions, and contractors who serve these entities in the public interest. The objective is to reduce or eliminate fraudulent or malevolent misuse of the Act, while preserving its intent to make public records available to all citizens in a timely fashion. A State -Wide Issue Outliers have devised an almost fool -proof scheme to game the Public Records act for the purpose of harassment or financial gain. Under the guise of a socially responsible alias (i.e. "Citizens Awareness Foundation"), an overwhelming or highly complex number of records are simultaneously requested, and a lawsuit is filed almost immediately for technical non-compliance. An offer is made for an undisclosed settlement at a fraction of court costs, and if accepted, the perpetrator collects and moves on. If the victim chooses to defend, the records requestor can claim inflated legal fees with a favorable judgment. No provision for fee -shifting is included in the Act; nor is the claim insurable by municipalities because the requestor does not ask for damages. We believe that many thousands of such extortion claims may have been filed statewide, and millions of taxpayer dollars directly or indirectly wasted. Within less than two years, the Town of Gulf Stream has received close to 2500 public records requests and faced over 40 lawsuits. Town reserves have been depleted, and millage raised to confront just one extortionist group. 2015 Progress Awareness of the distinction between legitimate and fraudulent use of the Public Records Act was significantly enhanced during 2015, as a result of (1) a class action case filed by the Town of Gulf Stream and a prominent provider of consulting services to Florida municipalities and government agencies against an alleged RICO Enterprise using the Act for extortion; (2) considerable effort to pass HB21 and S13224, aimed at providing statutory relief for contractors who might be affected by the scheme; (3) several favorable court rulings and bench opinions on the "cottage industry" of Public Records act scammers, and (4) publication of a comprehensive academic paper in a respected Law Review entitled "SUNBURNED: HOW MISUSE OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS CREATES AN OVERBURDENED, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND LESS TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT". This publication is now being distributed broadly to State and Municipal attorneys who are coping with abuse of Sunshine laws. 2016 Goals We believe that a new strategy must be crafted to assure that municipalities are better protected against frivolous Public Records lawsuits. Our objective all along has been to introduce a Bill containing language now existing in the Florida Government in the Sunshine Law into the Public Records Act, namely (286.011 (4)), ...the court shall assess a reasonable attorney's fees against the individual filing such an action if the court finds it was filed in bad faith or was frivolous". Continued support by the Florida League of Cities in addressing this issue will be crucial in the upcoming Session. FORT 850 FEW CLOUDS a 4 IDIS THOME OIRIS OGATiE AN410A NRLL JIN GARPELL NEWS WEATHER TRAFFIC SPORTS CALL FOR ACTION HOME > STATE > AMENDMENT WOULD BAN GUN RANGES IN SOME RESIDENTIAL AREAS W' MGN Amendment would ban gun ranges in some residential Ke Q U _ 3 BY ASSOCIA RESS APRIL z4, zois TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) —A compromise between the National Rifle Association and the Florida Police Chiefs Association has revived the possibility of a ban on backyard gun ranges in Florida. The Florida House on Thursday amended a bill on Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services COMMENTS regulations to ban shooting in dense residential areas. The i ZAL WIN TICKETS Senate has already adopted a similar amendment. The amendment, attached to House Bill 995 and Senate TAGS Bill 1444, makes it a first-degree misdemeanor to fire a gun for recreational reasons, "including for target shooting or celebratory shooting," in a residential area with a density BACKYARD of one home per acre or more. FLORIDA Rep. Darryl Rouson, D -St. Petersburg, introduced a bill RUN ANGE banning backyard gun ranges just before the legislative session began, but it quickly died when Rouson couldn't NAM ASSOCLATION find a Senate sponsor. The idea of a ban was revived in negotiations between the police chiefs and Florida NRA chief Marion Hammer, said Amy Mercer, executive director of the association. She said Hammer approved language suggested by the chiefs. Sen. Garrett Richter, R -Naples, sponsored the amendment. Rouson's bill had looser requirements for residential density and would have applied in more areas. "It's as much as we can get right now," he said. "You learn in this process to take baby steps." Current state law bans shooting in residential areas only if it's reckless or negligent and forbids local governments from enacting their own regulations. Law officers say the state law is difficult to enforce. "You have to wait for a bad result. By then, it's too late," Pinellas County Sheriff Bill Gualtieri said. POLICE Backyard gun ranges caused a ruckus last year in the CHIEFS .9SSOCIATION Tampa Bay area, Rouson's home turf, including an incident in which a Tampa home was peppered with AK -47 TALLALLASSEE fire from a backyard target range. Rouson said neighbors WINK had complained to him about a backyard gun range in a NEWS St. Petersburg neighborhood, but city officials couldn't do anything about it. The idea of a ban was revived in negotiations between the police chiefs and Florida NRA chief Marion Hammer, said Amy Mercer, executive director of the association. She said Hammer approved language suggested by the chiefs. Sen. Garrett Richter, R -Naples, sponsored the amendment. Rouson's bill had looser requirements for residential density and would have applied in more areas. "It's as much as we can get right now," he said. "You learn in this process to take baby steps." Current state law bans shooting in residential areas only if it's reckless or negligent and forbids local governments from enacting their own regulations. Law officers say the state law is difficult to enforce. "You have to wait for a bad result. By then, it's too late," Pinellas County Sheriff Bill Gualtieri said. 1012015 tsunnse Mayor mike Hyan questions state raw that snows uauayam gun iangeb -u lutuinsuilullal-aullsivi list lul Home Collections — Law Entorcomant P, cr:c.n;.: Law allowing backyard gun ranges needs to be changed, South Florida a officials say Tweet Residential shooting ranges are legal in Florida. and some cities have a problem with that February 13, 2014 1 By Susannah Bryan, Sun Sentinel Care to set up your own shooting range In the backyard? Go right ahead, state law says. That has local leaders in an uproar, with Sunrise Mayor Mike Ryan leading the charge. Range View: Taking Aim At Gun Laws Won't Stop Hallandale Beach Mayor Joy Cooper says she's willing to risk the $5,000 fine. Sniper October2o, 2002 "It's gotten to the point of absurdity that things like this are taking place and we are handcuffed from regulating It," Cooper said. "It's absurdity at the worst level" Hollywood Commissioner Patricia Asseff wants the slate to fix the law. Find More Stories About "I never heard of such a crazy thing," Asseff said. "If some bullet goes hying through the hedges, Law Enforcement somebody could get killed. We're not the wild wild west here." Shooting Range In late January, Ryan sent letters to Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for guidance on what action he could take to put restrictions in place without risking removal from office. Gun Range FREE DUFFEL BAG Annual Membership for only 525 "This matter Is the subject of pending litigation and is awaiting an opinion from the Attorney General's Office;" Deputy Press Secretary John Tupps said Thursday. Florida Employment Lawyer ballmanfirm.com Ballman, P.A. Ft. Laud 25+ Yrs. Exp Representing employees, executives Best South Florida Range akshooling.com Want To Publish A Book? luniverse.cam 1s Outdoor Target Range up Learn How To Get Published to 200yrd Trap, Skeet & 5 Today. Claim Your Free Stand, Pro Shop Publishing Guide. This week, the governor's general counsel advised Ryan to await the outcome of Palm Beach County lawsuit challenging the law passed in 2011 that allows the governor to remove local officials from office for enacting local gun laws. Broward County laterjoined the suit. Stale Rep. Katie Edwards, D -Plantation, says she is reaching out to law enforcement officials to see if they have examples of backyard gun ranges. "I have a concern about the next-door neighbor who hears a gun go off and calls law enforcement, and they have to go out because someone is using a gun in their back yard," she said. ttp:l/articles.sun-sentinel.coml2014-02-13lnewslfl-gun-range-backyard-20140213_7_gunowners-local-gun-laws-gun-use ill On Tuesday, the Sunrise commission approved a resolution urging the state to allow cities to restrict gun Related Articles use on private property. Palm Beach County outdoor shooting range sees surge Other South Florida cities say they are poised to follow suit, from Boynton Beach to Southwest Ranches in March 4, 2010 and Hallandale Beach. Can You Shoot To Kill? That's The Critical Question State law allows backyard gun ranges as long as the gunfire is not negligent or reckless. But the law Every... doesn't say what kind of backstop must be used, nor does it restrict the type of firearm and ammunition, June 24. 1990 the time of day or how far the makeshift range should be from schools, day-care centers or playgrounds, Ryan says. County Oks 3 -day Wait In Gun Sales August 17. 1988 Ryan would like to set up restrictions for Sunrise, but elected officials who enact local gun laws in Florida Attacks Boost Interest In Guns can be removed from office without a hearing, face 55,000 fines, and could be forced to pay their own September 30, 2001 legal fees if anyone sues to overtum the local ordinance. Range View: Taking Aim At Gun Laws Won't Stop Hallandale Beach Mayor Joy Cooper says she's willing to risk the $5,000 fine. Sniper October2o, 2002 "It's gotten to the point of absurdity that things like this are taking place and we are handcuffed from regulating It," Cooper said. "It's absurdity at the worst level" Hollywood Commissioner Patricia Asseff wants the slate to fix the law. Find More Stories About "I never heard of such a crazy thing," Asseff said. "If some bullet goes hying through the hedges, Law Enforcement somebody could get killed. We're not the wild wild west here." Shooting Range In late January, Ryan sent letters to Gov. Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi asking for guidance on what action he could take to put restrictions in place without risking removal from office. Gun Range FREE DUFFEL BAG Annual Membership for only 525 "This matter Is the subject of pending litigation and is awaiting an opinion from the Attorney General's Office;" Deputy Press Secretary John Tupps said Thursday. Florida Employment Lawyer ballmanfirm.com Ballman, P.A. Ft. Laud 25+ Yrs. Exp Representing employees, executives Best South Florida Range akshooling.com Want To Publish A Book? luniverse.cam 1s Outdoor Target Range up Learn How To Get Published to 200yrd Trap, Skeet & 5 Today. Claim Your Free Stand, Pro Shop Publishing Guide. This week, the governor's general counsel advised Ryan to await the outcome of Palm Beach County lawsuit challenging the law passed in 2011 that allows the governor to remove local officials from office for enacting local gun laws. Broward County laterjoined the suit. Stale Rep. Katie Edwards, D -Plantation, says she is reaching out to law enforcement officials to see if they have examples of backyard gun ranges. "I have a concern about the next-door neighbor who hears a gun go off and calls law enforcement, and they have to go out because someone is using a gun in their back yard," she said. ttp:l/articles.sun-sentinel.coml2014-02-13lnewslfl-gun-range-backyard-20140213_7_gunowners-local-gun-laws-gun-use ill 0/10/2015 Sunrise Mayor Mike Ryan questions stale law that allows backyard gun ranges - tdbunedigital-sunsentinel Boynton Beach Mayor Jerry Taylor was alarmed to hear gun owners can setup target practice in their own yards. "This is the first I'm hearing of it," he said.' Thal should be regulated." Sunrise resident Bernie Shaw says only a fool would set up a shooting range in a densely populated area. "1 don't think anyone who lives in Sunrise is that stupid to set up a gun range in their backyard," Shaw said. But some local leaders worry backyard shooting ranges might start popping up In residential areas. "It's frightening," said Southwest Ranches Mayor Jeff Nelson. "I don't want to be fined $5,000 if I'm trying to address this. It's crazy." Fort Lauderdale resident Russ Rector said he doesn't want to set up target practice in his yard, but he's worried some gun owners might. "As long as you don't shoot over a street or another residence. it's legal, and that's just crazy." Rector said. Ryan said he has sent the Sunrise resolution to the Broward League of Cities, Florida League of Cities and cities throughout Broward In hopes they will take up the cause. Pembroke Pines Commissioner Angelo Castillo says he's asked city staff to come up with recommendations to pass along to Tallahassee. "So if this does happen in my city — or anywhere — it can be done safety," Castillo said. "Even the most ardent gun owner would be a little worried" sbryan@fribune.com or 954-356-4554 Featured Articles Do Heat appreciate Pines police dive into the magnitude of Game 5? past, trying to ID unnamed dead MORE: So perhaps there is a place for Haslem? Priest's Passing Leaves A Void Can Bosh, Wade break out of their funk? 1 L _A -�M Is Pat Riley's tight ship overstated or overbearing? Does Wade retain edge on Stephenson? Can Pacers inside game overwhelm Heal? Pines police dive into the past, trying to ID unnamed dead http://articles.sun-sentinet.cc)ml2Ol4-02-131newsl l-gun-range-backyard-20140213_lyunowners-local-gun-laws-gun-use 21 6/10/2015 Big Pine Key homeowner has gun range in his yard, and it's totally legal I Miami Herald Miami Herald Florida Keys JANUARY 26, 2014 Big Pine Key homeowner has gun range in his yard, and it's totally legal HIGHLIGHTS Doug Varrieur built a target range so he and his wife could practice. The law says that's fine — but he thinks the law should be stricter. BY CAMMY CLARK Near the National Key Deer Refuge in the Lower Keys, on a sleepy street called Mango Lane, retired sheriff's deputy Huey Gordon checked the waterway behind neighbor Doug Varrieur's home for boat traffic. "All clear?" asked Varrieur, an author of diet cookbooks and owner of rental properties. "Yes, sir, you are," Gordon said. To which Varrieur replied: "The range is hot." He put on earmuffs and, within a few seconds, the peace of the residential neighborhood was replaced with the burst of small -caliber gunfire. Varrieur fired seven shots that traveled 21 feet to a target that had three cans inside a box and a picture of a zombie holding a screaming woman. "All right, one dead can," said Varrieur, 57. It has been a month since the friends first fired their guns in this makeshift shooting area — surrounded by a chain-link fence, a shiny RV and the canal. The shots sent shockwaves through the neighborhood. It became even scarier once the neighbors learned that on Varrieur's side was a state law on the books since 1987. Varrieur said most gun owners like himself had just assumed they couldn't shoot in residential neighborhoods. http://www.miamiheraid.com/newsAocal/community/florida-keys/artidel 959645.html 1/8 6/10/2015 Big Pine Key homeowner has gun range in his yard, and it's totally legal I Miami Herald Miami Herald "I honestly had hoped no one would catch wind of it and it would become public knowledge," Monroe County Sheriff Rick Ramsay said of the state law that pre-empts local ordinances. "I'm concerned now that people know. This isn't about the right to own and bear arms. My concern is public safety and quality of life." Ramsay is not the only one who is worried. Since word got out about the legality of Varrieur's "Gun Day" — he shoots from 3 to 4 p.m. every Wednesday — citizens and lawmakers up and down the island chain have become concerned that gun owners less responsible than Varrieur will begin shooting in their own yards. "Without any oversight, somebody's neighbor could set up a gun range and invite his friends over and have a good old time shooting," said longtime Monroe County Commissioner George Neugent. "That's a little scary situation, and I say that as a gun owner and somebody who believes in the Second Amendment." Even Varrieur said he was surprised to discover that he could shoot with few restrictions and with no mandatory safety requirements. "It's almost the wild, wild west again when we go back to firing wherever you want, whenever you want," Ramsay said. If people want to shoot on private property next to a daycare center, they can. Just last month, Ernie Vasiliou threatened to put a private gun range on a one -acre lot on Ranches Road west of Boynton Beach if a proposed daycare center were approved on land next to his. Vasiliou said noisy kids would ruin his dream -home plans. When Monroe County commissioners asked whether noise ordinances could be invoked to stop shooting at private homes, County Attorney Bob Shillinger said no. "And if they want to shoot a fully automatic weapon, and have a class 3 license, technically they would not be in violation of anything," Ramsay said. Varrieur, a snowbird, said he did not set out to create the firestorm. For years, he had been content shooting his gun at the range he built at his rural home on 6 1/2 acres near the Smoky Mountains in North Carolina. It was a .38 Charter Arms pistol that he bought for protection 27 years ago, after a woman pulled a gun on him while he was with his wife and two small kids in the parking lot of a Miami restaurant. The woman had claimed he stole her parking space. http.llwww.miamiheraid.com/newsfiocal/community/flodda-keys/articlel959645.html 2l6 o. .11. 1 n oiy rine may nomeowner nas gun range in nis yard, and it mlally legal I Miami Herald Miami Herald Last month, another frightening situation in Miami, in which he feared being carjacked while pumping gas, led him to purchase two new Smith and Wesson Bodyguard 380s, small - caliber guns with integrated lasers. One is for his wife, who has poor eyesight. Varrieur believes a gun with a laser will offer her more protection. When the guns arrived, he reasoned he needed to find a place to shoot them in the Keys to calibrate the lasers. "I was complaining to my gun shop owner that the nearest range from here is in Big Coppitt Key, which is 50 miles round trip, costs $45 an hour and is enclosed in a building with people shooting around you that you don't know," Varrieur said. "I told him in North Carolina, I could just go out to the gun range in my yard and fire my weapons, and it's too bad you can't do that in Florida, too." The gun shop owner told him that there were "rumors" that you could. It didn't take Varrieur long to look up Florida statute 790.15, and he was surprised by what he found. "I said to my wife: 'Do you know the only rules to discharging firearms on residential property are that you can't fire over a right-of-way of any paved public road, highway or street, you can't fire over any occupied dwelling and you can't fire recklessly or negligently?' " Varrieur said. "That's it." Until 2011, the statute didn't even include the part about firing "recklessly or negligently." Exactly what that means, no one knows for sure. Patrick McCullah, general counsel for the Monroe County Sheriff's Office, said that at this point there is no case law at the appellate level that has interpreted the terms "recklessly or negligently" in the statute. In the Jan. 17 "Weekly Wrap Up" for the sheriff's office, McCullah addressed the issue for the third time. Because the statute is so subjective and vague, McCullah recommends that officers contact him on a case-by-case basis. Because violation of the statute is only a first-degree misdemeanor, Ramsay said an officer would have to personally witness the recklessness or negligence to make an arrest at the scene. (The offense is punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 and maximum jail time of a year.) Varrieur said he is supremely concerned about safety — especially because his parents, who are in their 80s, live next door. He built a target with plywood attached to a wood structure that is three feet by four feet and six inches thick. For further safety, Varrieur http:llwvw.miamiheraid.coMnewsAacaUcommunity/florida-keys/articlel 959645.html 3I8 6 /1 012 01 5 Big Pine Key homeowner has gun range in his yard, and it's totally legal I Miami Herald Miami Herald spent $600 to build a wooden backstop eight feet wide by seven feet high and a foot thick that he placed in front of a storage shed. While it is not required, the backstop was inspected by a Monroe County sheriff's deputy and two U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officers. Still, several neighbors are upset about the noicse and concerned about stray bullets, which they fear could kill pets or people. One woman tried to gather signatures for a petition to stop the shooting. Ramsay said even trained officers have accidental discharges. "And even if you are a good shot, bullets can ricochet," he said. "Just look at all the holes in the ceiling and side walls at indoor gun ranges." A month ago, on Christmas Day, a grandfather in Volusia County was working in his back yard when he was hit in the chest by an errant bullet fired from a neighbor's yard. Bruce Fleming, 69, died less than an hour later at a local hospital. No arrest has been made in the case while investigators await forensic evidence. According to the Daytona Beach News Journal, the shooter has been identified. He admitted to firing a shotgun but said he did not know the bullets had hit anyone. The shots were fired from a nearby property with a horse stable. Many municipalities in Florida used to have local laws banning the firing of guns in residential areas. While the preemptive state law has been in place for almost three decades, many local governments ignored it and passed their own gun ordinances. But in 2011, backed by the National Rifle Association, the Republican -led state Legislature put more teeth into the state law, creating penalties for local lawmakers who violate it. Gov. Rick Scott signed the law that now makes anyone who creates or upholds local gun ordinances subject to fines of up to $5,000. They also can be removed from office and forced to pay their own legal bills if sued over local gun ordinances. Once the 2011 law took effect, Florida Carry, a nonprofit, gun -rights organization, began systematically going after any municipality that had not already put a bullet into its local gun ordinances. Palm Beach County sued the state to keep its gun laws, but the courts upheld the Legislature's authority. http://www.miamiherald.coMnewsAocal/community/tlorida-keyslarticlel 959645.html 4/8 6/10/2015 Big Pine Key homeowner has gun range in his yard. and it's totally legal I Miami Herald Miami Herald "I think it's ridiculous and absurd that we can't regulate where shooting ranges can crop up," said Monroe County Commissioner Heather Carruthers, whose district includes the high- density island of Key West. As the law is written now, a person technically could shoot a gun even in a tiny yard near Duval Street. During a Monroe County Commission meeting last week, County Attorney Shillinger gave the commissioners the news: "Your hands are tied." But they haven't given up. At a special meeting scheduled for Jan. 31, an agenda item was added that authorizes the county to seek an opinion from the state attorney general regarding the county's authority to regulate shooting ranges on residential properties. "That's already been asked and answered, in my opinion," Ramsay said. "The law is point blank on it: Don't interfere with somebody firing a gun on their property." In 2005, when Charlie Crist was attorney general, he wrote a letter to Sheriff Roy Raymond of Indian River County that said: "It is well settled that absent a general law stating otherwise, local governments have no authority to regulate firearms in any manner." Raymond had asked Crist whether the county could pass an ordinance prohibiting the discharge of a firearm in proximity to persons or property when such discharge endangers the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of such county. State Rep. Holly Raschein, a Republican who represents the Keys, said that while she is a big supporter of the Second Amendment, she was "shocked" when she heard about the lack of regulation of residential shooting ranges. "I almost didn't believe it at first," she said. "I'm originally from Alaska, and we're no strangers to guns up there. But even in Anchorage, that's not allowed.... Public safety has to be a top priority." Raschein asked the county to get clarification from the current Florida attorney general before she looks into what can be done by the Legislature. She has received a list of suggestions on how to make statute 790.15 stronger — and that list came from Varrieur. "There's people in this area who think I'm some redneck, chewing, dipping my lip, Second Amendment nut," Varrieur said. "I'm not. All I want to do is come out here and safely shoot my gun. Instead, I am pushing the limit — the only way to get attention is if people get mad." http://www.miamiheraid.conVnews/local/community/florida-keys/articiel 959645.html 5%8 611 012 01 5 Big Pine Key homeowner has gun range in his yard, and it's totally legal I Miami Herald Miami Herald The reason: He, too, is concerned about what he called the "loose" way the law is written. "I would be fearful if someone just started firing weapons on his side yard without appropriate and proper backdrops and safety precautions in place," he said. "You're damn right I would be. There is no room for error when it comes to a lethal weapon." He made a list of requirements he thinks should be included in the statute for non -rural residences. They include requirements about backstops, targets, the distance that bullets can travel, the time of day shots can be fired and the types of weapons and ammunition that can be used. He doesn't think it is safe to use high-powered rifles and armor -piercing bullets at your home. Varrieur also thinks owners should be required to take a gun -safety course and call the local police department before firing so that it won't waste resources checking out shots -fired calls when officers could be needed in an emergency elsewhere. On Wednesday, he called the sheriff's office and then his wife to let her know it was time to put the dogs into the bathtub because he was about to start shooting. "The noise scares them," he said. "My wife just told me there has been a shooting at Oklahoma University," he said. That report last week turned out to be a false alarm. But, he said, "It's rampant, so rampant that each and every individual in this country needs to be self -protected. And everybody who has a gun needs to practice. "I don't want the law to go away. I want to see the law get better." MORE FLORIDA KEYS You May Like 6 Celebrities Who Haven't Aged Gracefully! VlralNado Sponsored Links by Taboola httpJlwww.miamiherald.caMnews/local/community/florida-keys/articlel 959645.html 6/8 aQ�,�pGUEOpC't'� LEGISLATIVE o. z Rw� ISSUE BRIEFS Homelessness Priority Statement: The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation that provides a sustainable and dedicated funding source to deliver training and technical assistance to programs that offer the necessary support services for Florida's homeless individuals and families and those who are at risk of becoming homeless. Background: According to a recent report by the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, there are 42,476 homeless individuals and 31,148 homeless families with children in Florida. This does not include 6,798 unaccompanied homeless youths working to stay in school and 24,815 families with children in school who live in unstable housing, such as motels or with friends, neighbors and relatives. Florida has the nation's third largest homeless population according to the state Council on Homelessness, and Florida experienced a 14.8 percent increase in homelessness between 2007 and 2012 — a period during which homelessness decreased 5.7 percent nationally. The strain that the homeless population places on city budgets and services is an issue for all of Florida's municipalities. By providing local governments and community-based organizations with funding to deliver training and technical assistance to meet the needs of the homeless population and those at risk of becoming homeless, municipalities will be better equipped to overcome the challenges they face and ultimately realize a sustained reduction in local homeless populations. Current Status: HB 379 (Peters) creates a dedicated funding source for homelessness issues by allocating four percent of the total amount distributed to the Local Government Housing Trust Fund to the Department of Children and Families to be available for homeless assistance continuums of care for operations and other support. The bill is now in the House Economic Development and Tourism Subcommittee. CS/CS/SB 1500 (Latvala) also contains the dedicated funding source language that is found in HB 379. In addition, the bill directs the State Office on Homelessness (SOH) to establish a task force to make recommendations regarding the implementation of a statewide Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) which must be reported to the Council on Homelessness by December 31, 2015. The bill requires that the SOH, with the approval of the council, accept and administer funds appropriated to it to provide annual "Challenge Grants" to lead agencies of homeless assistance continuums of care. The council is directed to establish varying levels of grant awards up to S500,000 per lead agency. The bill requires the SOH to establish performance measures and specific objectives by which it may evaluate performance and outcomes of lead agencies that receive grant funds. Funding will be distributed to lead agencies based on their overall performance and their achievement of specified objectives. The bill specifies that Rapid ReHousing must be included in each continuum of care plan. The bill clarifies that a local government may not expend its portion of the local housing distribution to provide ongoing rent subsidies unless certain conditions are met. The bill specifies that funds made available to the state from the National Housing Trust Fund be deposited into the State Housing Trust Fund to be used to develop and construct housing to reduce homelessness in Florida. HB 379 is in the House Economic Development and Tourism Subcommittee. SB 1500 is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee. The language from CS/CS/SB 1500 was also amended onto CS/CS/SB 1214, a bill dealing with Econonvc Development. CS/CS/SB 1214 in on Second Reading in the Senate. Revised: 4/27/2015 Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative advocate — 850.222.9684 — ccook(a-,flcitics.com F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 379 2015 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to local housing distributions; 3 amending s. 420.9073, F.S.; requiring the Florida 4 Housing Finance Corporation to distribute to the 5 Department of Children and Families and the Department 6 of Economic Opportunity certain funds from the Local 7 Government Housing Trust Fund for the purpose of 8 providing support, training, and technical assistance 9 to designated lead agencies of local homeless 10 assistance continuums of care; providing an effective 11 date. 12 13 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 14 15 Section 1. Subsections (5) through (7) of section 16 420.9073, Florida Statutes, are renumbered as subsections (6) 17 through (8), and a new subsection (5) is added to that section, 18 to read: 19 420.9073 Local housing distributions. - 20 (5) Before making distributions pursuant to (1)-(4) the 21 corporation shall first distribute 4 percent of the total amount 22 to be distributed each fiscal year from the Local Government 23 Housing Trust Fund to the Department of Children and Families 24 and the Department of Economic Opportunity as follows: 25 (a) The Department of Children and Families shall receive 26 95 percent of such amount for operating and other support for Page 1 of 2 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0379-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F HB 379 R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 27 use by the designated lead agency in each local homeless 28 assistance continuum of care for the benefit of the designated 29 catchment area as described in s. 420.624. 2015 30 (b) The Department of Economic Opportunity shall receive 5 31 percent of such amount for training and technical assistance to 32 lead agencies that receive operating and other support under 33 paragraph (a) in accordance with s. 420.606(3). Training and 34 technical assistance funded by this distribution shall be 35 provided by a nonprofit organization that meets the requirements 36 37 of s. 420.531. Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2015. Page 2 of 2 CODING: Words stkken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0379-00 Vacation Rentals The Florida League of Cities SUPPORTS legislation that repeals the state preemption of the regulation of vacation rental properties in order to allow local governments to regulate such properties to protect the health and welfare of residents, visitors and businesses. Background: In 2011, the Florida legislature prohibited cities from regulating short-term vacation rentals. A short- term vacation rental is defined as a property that is rented more than three times a year for less than 30 days at a time. The legislation passed in 2011 included a provision that "grandfathered" any ordinance regulating vacation rentals prior to June 1, 2011. Since that time a number of tides, both "grandfathered" cities and those who did not have an ordinance in place, have experienced problems with these properties. The effect of the 2011 bill is that two separate classes of cities were created respective to vacation rentals, those with home rule authority and those without. In 2014, the legislature passed SB 356 which loosened the preemption on vacation rentals. The bill allowed local governments to adopt ordinances specific to vacation rentals so that they could address some of the noise, parking, trash, and life -safety issues created by the proliferation of vacation rentals in residential neighborhoods. Unfortunately, SB 356 left in place existing statutory language stating that cities cannot "prohibit" vacation rentals, or regulate the duration or frequency of the rental. Those cities fortunate enough to have an ordinance in place prior to the 2011 preemption are still allowed to regulate vacation rentals, but the questions remains whether these ordinances will remain valid if amended. Some city attorneys believe that these ordinances are "frozen" and any future amendments would cause a loss of the "grandfather." The problem with this is twofold. First, with the rise of popular rental websites like l"aarlion Rental Gy Owner (VRBO) and = 1irl;a8 making it easier to advertise and rent these properties, the number of vacation rentals in Florida has exponentially increased in the last four years Second, as a result of this enormous growth in the vacation rental market, the scope of the problem has changed and ordinances adopted before 2011 may no longer be effective. It is important to note that many of our larger cities (with a larger professional staff) fell into the grandfathered category. They have retained the ability to regulate these properties through zoning and may have duration and frequency requirements. Some may still want to amend to adjust to a changing - problem. They are reluctant to do so out of fear of losing their existing ordinance and with it their home rule authority. Recognizing that the ordinances on the books are no longer effective, cities want the ability to come up with solutions that work for their respective community, but because of the potential loss of the "grandfather," they are unable to do so. It is important to note that any potential amendments to existing ordinances would be vetted through numerous public hearings that allow neighboring homeowners, vacation rental owners, vacation rental managers, and local businesses the ability to weigh in on proposed legislation. Cities without vacation rental ordinances in place prior to June 1, 2011 have had their zoning authority stripped and are now seeing vacation rentals completely taking over residential neighborhoods. Long- time residents are moving out as a result and the residential character of traditional neighborhoods is slowly being stripped away. The impacts of problematic vacation rentals on neighboring residents are felt in a number of ways: The Hotel Next Door — Commercial Acticzty in Residential Neighborhoods Houses that sleep 26 people are now present in what was once a traditional neighborhood. Because of the inability to regulate the duration of a renter's stay, these houses could experience weekly, daily or even hourly turnover. Obviously, the constant turnover of renters creates a number of issues for cities and neighboring property owners. Prior to the preemption, local governments were able to regulate this activity through zoning. Vacation rentals have become increasingly popular in the last five years and because a city cannot "prohibit" these properties, they are powerless to exclude vacation rentals from residential neighborhoods..ks a result, investors, man% of whom are located out-of-state or even in a different country, have purchased or built shhgle- family homes with the sole intent of turning them into vacation rentals. Loss of Zoning Autl_�ority Cities use zoning as a tool to prepare for future growth in their cities and also use it to control where commercial and residential properties are located. Hotels have different infrastructure needs than single-family residential properties. As residential neighborhoods are developed, the infrastructure installed is designed for the future use of the properties. Many neighborhoods have infrastructure in place with capacity for up to eight people per house. Now there are houses in these very same neighborhoods that sleep 26 people placing a significant strain on existing infrastructure. Commercial properties like bars, hotels and restaurants typically need more parking than a single-family property as well as have different operating hours and experience greater noise levels. The current law removes important land use and zoning tools that will impact how a city plans for future growth and levels of service. Noise Complaints Many neighboring residents complain of die noise generated by the vacationing renters next door. When people go on vacation, often their behavior changes - they may stay awake until later, consume a few more adult beverages throughout the day, or participate in recreational activities until later such as swimming at midnight while listening to music. Residents complain of the noise generated as a result. Many of these complaints are generated by the neighboring houses, but it's important to note that many of our primarily -residential communities may not be located on a beach. Instead, they may be located on a canal that leads to the ocean or even a lake. Sound travels over water — and residents located more than a hundred yards away may be the ones that are calling and complaining to the police and their local elected officials. Some cities have noise ordinances, but these have proved problematic to enforce. One such example is Lighthouse Point—Lighthouse Point's ordinance requires sustained noise over a certain decibel threshold for 10 minutes. Many times after the police arrive at a residence, the noise dies down. These renters may leave the next day with new ones replacing them. The new renters are often unaware of the noise ordinance or past complaints and may cause the same problems. The out-of-state property owner may not even be aware of the problems created by their renters and with the constant turnover, the problem ends as one renter leaves and begins again as new renters Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate — 850.222.9684 — ccook(d flcities.com arrive. This causes a significant drain on law enforcement resources. When law enforcement officers are called to respond to noise complaints, one less officer is on the street either preventing crimes or solving crines. Parking Many vacation rentals are located in single-family neighborhoods for families. The parking available in the driveway was built for two or three cars. When you now have a renovated house that sleeps 26, there will be more than three cars needed to get these renters to the property. As a result, many of these cars are parked on the street. Cars parked on the street make it tough for emergency vehicles to respond to emergencies and cause increased response times to emergencies in these neighborhoods. Cities have begun to adopt ordinances creating parking standards for vacation rental properties. Unfortunately, these ordinances only solve the parking issue and not any of the other issues created by commercial activity in a residential community. Revenue Issues There are approximately 16,000 licensed vacation rentals in Florida, but a quick search of VRBO reveals tens of thousands more that are advertised. As stated earlier, a property rented more than three times a year for less than 30 days at a time meets the vacation rental definition and should be licensed by the state. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) is tasked with investigating unlicensed vacation rentals, but they lack the resources needed to investigate these complaints. Unlicensed vacation rentals could be costing the state of Florida millions each year from licensing revenue. Licensed vacation rentals are also required to charge a sales tax to renters and then remit this back to the state. Many licensed vacation rentals are not doing this and unlicensed vacation rentals most likely are not as well. Again, DBPR and DOR have limited resources and cannot adequately investigate complaints from local governments. The loss of sales tax revenue from these properties is likely costing the state millions in sales tax revenue. Some counties impose a tourist development tax (TDT) and vacation rental owners in these counties are required to collect and remit this money to the Department of Revenue (DOR). DOR also has limited resources and does not have the manpower to track down vacation rentals that are not paying the TDT despite numerous requests from cities around the state. Last year, the legislature began the conversation on vacation rentals and the League of Cities supported both HB 307 and SB 356. These bills were a step in the right direction, but only partially restored home rule to Florida's cities. Cities are still prevented from regulating the duration and frequency of the rentals and local zoning does not apply to these properties. Current Status: The House Local Government Affairs Subcommittee held a workshop on vacation rentals and a number of city officials from around the state, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and the Vacation Rental Managers association provided comment to the committee. ffB 735 (Moraitis) and SB 1344 allow grandfathered cities to amend their vacation rental ordinance without losing their grandfather status. The bills also allow cities to set a minimum stay requirement of up to seven days for vacation rental properties. Revised: 4/27/2015 Contact: Casey Cook, Sr. Legislative Advocate — 850.222.9684 — ccookCafflcides.com 6/10/2015 Feinstein joins coalition in support of McGuire's vacation rental legislation Feinstein joins coalition in support of McGuire's vacation rental legislation WEDNESDAY, 27 MAY 2015 22:05 EDITOR NORTHERN CALIFORNIA— United States Sen. Dianne Feinstein joined a broad coalition of public safety officials, housing advocates, senior organizations, business organizations and California cities and counties this week in support of State Sen. Mike McGuire's online vacation rental legislation, SB 593. McGuire's bill, co-authored by state Sen. Mark Leno, has been approved by both the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee as well as the Senate Governance and Finance Committee. This simple legislation continues to gain momentum in its effort to provide California communities the resources they need to thrive by reinforcing local laws already on the books. "I am grateful for Sen. Feinstein's hard work and support on this critical issue. The senator has seen first-hand the struggle San Francisco and other communities have had simply trying to enforce the laws that are already on the books in 431 cities and 56 California counties. This bill is simple — it doesn't add new taxes or take away anyone's privacy — all it does is make online vacation rental businesses follow local laws, just like the rest of us," McGuire said. In her letter of support for SB 593, Senator Feinstein wrote: 1 support local govemments' ability to pass and enforce ordinances on short term rentals, particularly those negotiated through online reservation systems. The unrestricted rise of online hosting companies for short-term stays in private homes has made it more difficult to track and regulate these properties. Many cities and counties have expressed concern about protecting the residential nature of neighborhoods and collecting transient occupancy taxes." SB 593 —the Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act —will empower local control by providing the basic data required to gather desperately needed funding for parks, road improvements, fire and police services, and promote safe neighborhoods. The bill requires online vacation rental businesses to provide municipalities the same information that 431 cities and 56 counties currently require via their local tourist tax laws: home business address, number of room nights stayed by the tourist and the room rate. "We have seen, in many cities, management companies buying up hundreds of apartments or condos in what was a traditional neighborhood and renting them out as lodging units, leading to significant conflict due to congested streets, lack of parking and full time residents having to deal with a new hotel popping up in their neighborhood — not to mention the loss of affordable housing units for working families and seniors," McGuire said. After passing two committees in the Senate, SB 593 is headed to the Senate floor for a vote. Like Share 8+1 - 3 Tweet D submit YON http://www.lakeconews.comrindex.php?view=article&catid=40%3Abusiness-news&id=41941 %3Afeinstein-joins-coalition-In-support-of-mcguires-vacati... 1/1 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F MINK -1 R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 2015 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to vacation rentals; amending s. 3 509.032, F.S.; revising the permitted scope of local 4 laws, ordinances, and regulations with respect to 5 vacation rentals; providing an exemption for 6 subsequent amendments of certain provisions of 7 existing local laws, ordinances, and regulations 8 adopted on or before a specified date; providing an 9 effective date. 10 11 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 12 13 Section 1. Paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of section 14 509.032, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: 15 509.032 Duties. - 16 (7) PREEMPTION AUTHORITY. - 17 (b) A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit 18 vacation rentals, e -r- regulate the duration or frequency of 19 rental of vacation rentals, or set a minimum stay requirement of 20 more than 7 days for vacation rentals. This paragraph does not 21 apply to any provision of a local law, ordinance, or regulation 22 which is otherwise prohibited by this paragraph but was adopted 23 on or before June 1, 2011, or to any subsequent amendment of 24 such a provision. 25 Section 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2015. Page 1 of 1 CODING: Words stkl(en are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0735-00 Get ready for another Florida medical marijuana push By Daniel Vasquez JUNE 9, 2015, 8'42 AM When pot is this good, people don't give up. And Florida is not giving up on medical -grade marijuana anytime soon. In fact, in coming weeks the second political push to legalize medical marijuana in the Sunshine State via a constitutional amendment will be underway. Last year, 58 percent of state voters approved such an amendment. However, the legislation needed 6o percent voter -approval to pass. So close, ,yet so far. Now leaders of United for Care, the grassroots organization backed by a powerful Orlando attorney, John Morgan, expect to hit the ground sometime in June to build support. It's too bad all this is taking so long. It's too bad lawmakers didn't see the light last year and pass a solid medical marijuana law. It's too bad the people of the great state of Florida have to finish the job. At least the odds are good. United for Care has plenty of resources left from the failed 2014 campaign, including thousands of now - experienced, impassioned volunteers, ballot language that already has passed legal muster and Morgan's checkbook. The first challenge will be to get 1oo,000 petition signatures to trigger a state Supreme Court review of new amendment language. After that, the group will have to collect a total of 600,000 signatures to get the law on the ballot. This is the best way to go. Florida lawmakers have proved they have no desire to help the scores of sick Floridians, children included, who would benefit medically from marijuana use. The natural drug alleviates pain, grows appetite and calms patients. Florida voters, you know what you have to do. You have to deliver a medical marijuana law yourselves. Daniel Vasquez may be reached at dvasquez@sunsentinel.com or @ConsumerDan. Copyright ® 2015, Sun Sentinel FROM AROUND THE WEB Sponsored Links How This Razor is Disrupting a $13 Billion Industry Dollar Shave Club Why Bridget Moynahan Is Living On Barely A $1 A Day ittp://www.sun-senanel.comlopiniordtodays-buzzlstl-get-ready-for-another-Bodda-medical-marijuana-push-20150609-story.html 113 Tf[rlYlriF7 Florida Still Playing Medical Marijuana Waiting Game I Growing Produce foesYour` ` l Apps Websites Videos Company =1"- Ideas ;.`rti ) Content Results Home > Citrus Florida Still Playing Medical Marijuana Waiting Game By: Paul Rusnak u Email i, --i Print f Facebook [Google+j I June 9, S+ Google in Linkedln NP Twitter 2015 Even though it has been nearly a year since the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act was signed into law by Florida Gov. Rick Scott, the process to make available "Charlotte's Web," a non -euphoric strain of marijuana, is still a little ways off. Extract from the plant can be used to treat patients suffering from epileptic seizures and other related disorders. The Latest Farm Managemr Florida Still Playing Medical Marijuana Waiting Game Jane') 5 Paramount Farms Renamed As Part Of The Wonderful Compan... June 9, 2015 Crop Proteetion 3 Los Angeles County Under Quarantine Following Guava Fru... http:6tvww.growi ng produce. comlvegetablesl(lodda-sti II-playi ng-med ica I -ma riiva n a-wa iti ng -g a mel U 61102015 rionaa sten maying meaicai marijuana waning came I crowing vroauce Much hoopla surrounded the historic signing of the bill last June, setting the stage for what looked like a possible gateway for Sunshine State voters to make full- blown medical marijuana legal in the upcoming November election. Though almost 58% of registered voters chose yes on Amendment 2, a 60% majority was required in order to alter the state's amendment. Since that night in early November, it's been mostly quiet on the medical marijuana front for Floridians — until recently. Progress behind Charlotte's Web had been stalled due to an ongoing legal challenge from a local plant nursery. Apopka -based Baywood Nurseries claims some of the state's proposed rules and regulations — particularly the requirements of 30 continuous years in business and an available 400,000 plant inventory — were created to give larger operations the upper hand in grabbing one of the five available regional medical marijuana growing licenses. Late last month, a judge from the State of Florida's Division of Administrative Hearings denied Baywood's claim, finally clearing the way for Charlotte's Web to be produced. But, this sounds like just the beginning of what is still a relatively lengthy process to move forward. Mara Burger, press secretary for the Florida Department of Health (DOH), says the judge's ruling now opens up the opportunity to accept applications from interested growers, which will officially begin June 17. "According to the rule, we can accept applications for 21 calendar days," Burger says. "After such time, we will evaluate applications." June 9, 2015 u5 Florida Juice Plant Put On Auction Block June 8, 2015 C;vus Crisafulli Citrus Matriarch Passes Away At 96 June 5, 2015 !p New Herbicide From Syngenta Receives EPA Registration June 4, -015 r Ail . Study: Many Unwilling To Waver On GMOs, Global Warming June 3, 2015 Nealta Miticide Receives Registration In California June 2, 2015 Regarding the evaluation period, Burger refers to Florida statute Ch. 120.60, which states: An application for a license must be approved or denied within 90 days after Buzzworthy Trend: Florida's Bee Colonies Building receipt of a completed application unless a shorter period May 29, 2015 of time for agency action is provided by law. --+w : 1-1 Farm Managelni With nearly 100 eligible nurseries possibly vying for the five open slots, the selection process could end up taking tttp:lAwm.growingproduce.coMvegetableslilodda-still-playing-medical-marijuana-wailing-game/ 2/4 6/1012015 Florida Still Playing Medical Marijuana Waiting Game I Growing Produce longer than anticipated, said Ben Bolusky, executive EPA Announces Final Rule On New Clean Water VP/CEO of the Florida Nursery, Growers & Landscape Act's Juris... May 28, 2015 Association. "Some people expect product will be available for patients by the end of 2015, while others expect it will be the spring of 2016." Despite the aggressive timelines, the DOH remains confident in its ability to get Charlotte's Web into the hands of those who need it most. "It is the goal of the department to get low -THC to those who need it this year," Burger concludes. TOPICS: Medical Marijuana Leave a Reply Enter your comment here... Farm Management PMA Comments On FDA's Proposed FSMA Implementation Work... May 27, 2015 �In - Senate OKs Trade Priorities And Accountability Act May 26, 2015 Marketing Florida Proud To Be Home Of The Brave [Opinion] May 25. 2015 NMI- Southwest Florida Research And Education Center Embraci... May 20, 2015 South Florida Rainy Season Could Wind Up On Drier Side May 20, 2015 Bad Weather Or Not, Preparation Always On Radar For Flo... May 19, 2015 http://www.growingproduce.comlvegetableslflodda-still-playing-medical-marijuana-waiting-game/ 314 The Florida Senate BILL ANALYSIS AND FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT (This document is based on the provisions contained in the legislation as of the latest date listed below.) Prepared Bv: The Professional Staff of the Committee on Rules BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 INTRODUCER: Rules Committee, Health Policy Committee, and Regulated Industries Committee SOR-3 eys DATE: Low -THC Cannabis April 9, 2015 REVISED: ANALYST Kraemer/Oxamendi 1. Looke 2. Oxamendi/Kraemer STAFF DIRECTOR Imhof Stovall Phelps REFERENCE HP RC ACTION RI Submitted as Committee Bill Fav/CS Fav/CS Please see Section IX. for Additional Information: COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE - Substantial Changes Summary: CS/CS/SB 7066 significantly revises the provisions of s. 381.986, F.S., related to the compassionate use of low -THC cannabis. The bill amends provisions related to the use of loxv-THC cannabis by: • Increasing the number of conditions for which a physician may order the use of low -THC cannabis. The new list of conditions includes hulnan immunodeficiency virus, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, epilepsy, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism, multiple sclerosis, Crohn's disease, Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, quadriplegia, and terminal illness, • Permitting the use of low -THC cannabis to treat the listed conditions, symptoms of those conditions, and symptoms created by treatments for those conditions; • Requiring a physician to register a patient's legal representative with the compassionate use registry in order for that person to be authorized to assist the patient with his or her use of low -THC cannabis; • Requiring a dispensing organization (DO) to verify the identity of the person being dispensed low -THC cannabis before dispensing; and • Restricting the locations where low -THC cannabis may be used; • Providing that low -THC cannabis food products may not include candy or similar confectionary products that appeal to children; and • Prohibiting persons who have direct or indirect interest in the dispensing organization, and the dispensing organization's managers, employees, and contractors who directly interact BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 2 with low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products from making recommendations, offering prescriptions, or providing medical advice to qualified patients. The bill amends provisions related to the cultivation, processing, and dispensing of low -THC cannabis by: • Increasing the number of DOs that the Department of Health (DOH or department) is required to license from 5 to 20; • Providing for the selection by lottery of two qualified applicants in each of the following defined regions: Northwest Florida. Northeast Florida, Central Florida, Southwest Florida. and Southeast Florida; • Providing for the selection by lottery the 10 additional dispensing organizations; • Specifying an application fee of $50,000, a licensure fee of $125,000, and a licensure renewal fee of $125,000; • Reducing the performance and compliance bond from $5 million to $1 million, • Significantly revising and expanding the criteria required for an applicant to qualify for licensure; • Preempting regulation of DO cultivation and processing facilities to the state and allowing municipalities and counties to choose by ordinance the number and location of any DO retail facilities authorized in that municipality or the unincorporated area of that county, respectively; • Requiring DO vehicles to be permitted by the DOH; • Authorizing the DOH to inspect DO premises and facilities. The DOH is required to perform an inspection of all DO facilities before such facilities become operational and at licensure renewal; • Allowing the DOH to fine a DO up to $10,000 or to revoke, suspend. or deny a DO's license for listed violations including failure to maintain the qualifications for licensure and endangering the health, safety, and welfare of a qualified patient: and • Requiring DOs to have all low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis product tested by an independent testing laboratory before dispensing it. The DO trust determine that the tests results show that the low -THC cannabis or product meets the applicable definition, is free from contaminants, and is safe for human consumption. Licensed laboratories and their employees are exempt from provisions in ch. 893, F.S., for the possession of cannabis for the purpose of testing such cannabis. The bill also amends provisions related to the study of the safety and efficacy of low -THC cannabis by the University of Florida (UF) by requiring the OF College of Pharmacy (UFCP) to create a research program that includes a fully integrated electronic information system. The bill allows OF researchers to access the compassionate use registry, the prescription drug monitoring program database (PDMP), and Medicaid records' for qualified patients in order to conduct research required by the bill. The bill also requires physicians to submit requested medical records for qualifying patients to the UFCP. The bill exempts the rules of the DOH under this act from the rule ratification requirements of s. 120.541(3), F.S. To the extent allowed by Federal law. BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 3 The bill is effective upon becoming law. IL Present Situation: Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act of 2014 Patient Treatment with Low -THC Cannabis The Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act of 20142 (act) legalized a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and high cannabidiol (CBD) form of cannabis (low -THC cannabis)' for the medical use4 by patients suffering from cancer or a physical medical condition that chronically produces symptoms of seizures or severe and persistent muscle spasms. The act provides that a Florida licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician who has completed the required training and has examined and is treating such a patient may order low -THC cannabis for that patient to treat a disease, disorder, or condition or to alleviate its symptoms, if no other satisfactory alternative treatment options exist for that patient. In order to meet the requirements of the act all of the following conditions must apply: • The patient is a permanent resident of Florida; • The physician determines that the risks of ordering low -THC cannabis are reasonable in light of the potential benefit for that patient,6 • The physician registers as the orderer of low -THC cannabis for the patient on the compassionate use registry (registry) maintained by the DOH and updates the registry to reflect the contents of the order; • The physician maintains a patient treatment plan that includes the dose, route of administration, planned duration, and monitoring of the patient's symptoms and other indicators of tolerance or reaction to the low -THC cannabis: • The physician submits the patient treatment plan quarterly to the OF College of Pharmacy for research on the safety and efficacy of low -THC cannabis on patients; and • The physician obtains the voluntary informed consent of the patient or the patient's legal guardian to treatment with low -THC cannabis after sufficiently explaining the current state of '- See ch. 2014-157, L.O.F., and s. 381.986, F.S The act defined "low -THC cannabis," as the dried flowers of the plant Cannabis which contain 0.8 percent or less of tetrahydrocannabinol and more than 10 percent of cannabidiol weight for weight, or the seeds, resin, or any compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin. See s. 381.986(1)(b), F.S. Eleven states allow limited access to marijuana products (low -THC and/or high CBD -cannabidiol). Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky. Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. Twenty-three states, the District of Columbia, and Guam have laws that permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. See infra note 28. See hM://wwwnesl.ore/research/health/state-medical-mariivana-laws.as tax (Tables 1 and 2), (last visited on March 27, 2015). Pursuant to s. 381.986(1)(c), F.S., "medical use" means administration of the ordered amount of low -THC cannabis; and the tern does not include the possession, use, or administration by smoking, or the transfer of low -THC cannabis to a person other than die qualified patient for whom it was ordered or the qualified patient's legal representative. Section 381.986( I )(e), F.S., defines "smoking" as burning or igniting a substance and inhaling the smoke. smoking does not include the use of a vaporizer. e Section 381,986(4), F S., requires such physicians to successfully complete an 8 -hour course and examination offered by the Florida Medical Association or the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association that encompasses the clinical indications for the appropriate use of low -THC cannabis, appropriate delivery mechanisms, contraindications for such use, and the state and federal laws governing its ordering, dispensing, and processing 6 If a patient is younger than 18 years of age, a second physician must concur with this determination, and such determination must be documented in the patient's medical record BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 4 knowledge in the medical community of the effectiveness of treatment of the patient's condition with low -THC cannabis, the medically acceptable alternatives, and the potential risks and side effects. A physician who orders low -THC cannabis for a patient without a reasonable belief that the patient is suffering from a required condition and any person who fraudulently represents that he or she has a required condition to a physician for the purpose of being ordered low -THC cannabis commits a misdemeanor of the first degree. The DOH is required to monitor physician registration and ordering of low -THC cannabis in order to take disciplinary action as needed. The act creates exceptions to existing law to allow qualified patients' and their legal representatives to purchase, acquire, and possess low -THC cannabis (up to the amount ordered) for that patient's medical use, and to allow DOs, and their owners, managers, and employees, to acquire, possess, cultivate, and dispose of excess product in reasonable quantities to produce low -THC cannabis and to possess, process, and dispense low -THC cannabis. DOs and their owners, managers, and employees are not subject to licensure and regulation under ch. 465, F.S., relating to pharmacies.8 Dispensing Organizations The act requires the DOH to approve five DOs with one in each of the following regions: northwest Florida, northeast Florida, central Florida, southeast Florida and southwest Florida.' In order to be approved as a DO, an applicant must possess a certificate of registration issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the cultivation of more than 400,000 plants, be operated by a nurseryman, and have been operating as a registered nursery in this state for at least 30 continuous years. Applicants are also required to demonstrate: • The technical and technological ability to cultivate and produce low -THC cannabis. • The ability to secure the premises, resources, and personnel necessary to operate as a DO. • The ability to maintain accountability of all raw materials, finished products, and any byproducts to prevent diversion or unlawful access to or possession of these substances. • An infrastructure reasonably located to dispense low -THC cannabis to registered patients statewide or regionally as detennined by the department. • The financial ability to maintain operations for the duration of the 2 -year approval cycle. including the provision of certified financials to the department; • That all owners and managers have been fingerprinted and have successfully passed a level 2 background screening pursuant to s. 435.04. F.S, and • The employment of a medical director, who mast be a physician and have successfully completed a course and examination that encompasses appropriate safety procedures and knowledge of low -THC cannabis. 10 ' See s. 381.986(1)(d), F.S., which provides that a "qualified patient" is a Florida resident who has been added by a physician licensed under ch. 458, F.S., or ch. 459, F.S., to the compassionate use registry to receive low -THC cannabis from a DO. "See s. 381.986(7)(c), F.S. 9 See s 381.986(5)(b), F S. 10 Id. BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 5 Upon approval, a DO must post a $5 million performance bond. The DOH is authorized to charge an initial application few and a licensure renewal fee, but is not authorized to charge an initial licensure fee. 11 An approved DO must also maintain all approval criteria at all times. The Compassionate Use Registry The act requires the DOH to create a secure, electronic, and online registry for the registration of physicians and patients and for the verification of patient orders by DOs, which is accessible to law enforcement. The registry must allow DOs to record the dispensation of low -THC cannabis. and must prevent an active registration of a patient by multiple physicians. Physicians trust register qualified patients with the registry and DOs are required to verify that the patient has an active registration in the registry, that the order presented matches the order contents as recorded in the registry, and that the order has not already been filled before dispensing any low -THC cannabis. DOs are also required to record in the registry the date, time, quantity, and form of low -THC cannabis dispensed. The DOH has indicated that the registry is built and ready to move to the operational phase.12 The Office of Compassionate Use and Research on Low -THC Cannabis The act requires the DOH to establish the Office of Compassionate Use under the direction of the deputy state health officer to administer the act. The Office of Compassionate Use is authorized to enhance access to investigational new drugs for Florida patients through approved clinical treatment plans or studies, by: • Creating a network of state universities and medical centers recognized for demonstrating excellence in patient -centered coordinated care for persons undergoing cancer treatment and therapy in this state. 13 • Making any necessary application to the United States Food and Drug Administration or a pharmaceutical manufacturer to facilitate enhanced access to compassionate use for Florida patients; and • Entering into agreements necessary to facilitate enhanced access to compassionate use for Florida patients. 14 The act includes several provisions related to research on low -THC cannabis and cannabidiol including: • Requiring physicians to submit quarterly patient treatment plans to the UFCP for research on the safety and efficacy of low -THC cannabis; • Authorizing state universities to perform research on cannabidiol and low -THC cannabis and exempting them from the provisions in ch. 893, F.S., for the purposes of such research, and • Appropriating $1 million to the James and Esther King Biomedical Research Program for research on cannabidiol and its effects on intractable childhood epilepsy. 11 Id. 12 Conversation with Jennifer Tschetter, Chief of Staff (DOH) (March 20, 2015). 17 See s. 381.925, F.S. 14 See s. 385.212, F.S. BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Challenges to Proposed DOH Rules Beginning on July 7, 2014, the DOH held several rule workshops intended to write and adopt rules implementing the provisions of s. 381.986, F.S., and the DOH put forward a proposed rule on September 9, 2014. This proposed rule was challenged by (multiple organizations involved in the rulemaking workshops and was found to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the Administrative Law Judge on November 14, 2014. t' Afterward, the DOH held a negotiated rulemaking workshop in February of 2015, which resulted in a new proposed rule being published on February 6, 2015. The new proposed rule has also been challenged and a hearing is scheduled for April 14, 2015.16 The challenge on the February 6, 2015, rule includes. among other things, a challenge of the DOH's statement of estimated regulatory costs (SERC) and the DOH's conclusion that the rule will not require legislative ratification. Section 120.541, F.S., requires legislative ratification of rules that are likely to have an adverse impact on economic growth, private sector job creation or employment, or private sector investment in excess of $1 million in the aggregate within 5 years after the implementation of the rule. The DOH has estimated a 5 -year regulatory cost totaling $750,000 on the five DOs. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee has raised several questions regarding the DOH's estimate, including additional impacts for nurseries that are approved for more than one region, and the cost of the biennial renewal. If a rule exceeds the threshold amount, the rule may not take effect until it is ratified by the Legislature. Treatment of Marijuana in Florida Florida law defines cannabis as "all parts of any plant of the genus Cannabis, whether growing or not, the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant, and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin,- 17 and places it, along with other sources of THC, on the list of Schedule I controlled substances." The definition of cannabis was amended by the act to exclude "low -THC cannabis" as defined in s. 381.986, F.S., if manufactured, possessed, sold, purchased, delivered, distributed, or dispensed, in conformance with that section. Schedule I controlled substances are substances that have a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use in the United States. As a Schedule I controlled substance, possession and trafficking in cannabis carry criminal penalties that vary from a first degree misdemeanor 19 up to a first degree felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in state prison and a $200,000 fine .211 Paraphernalia" that is sold, manufactured, used, or possessed with the intent to be used to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, See https.Hwkx,%N,.doali.state.fl.us/ROS/2014/14004296.pd (last accessed March 27, 2015). '" E-mail front Mariorie Holladay, Chief Attorney, Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, to Patrick Imhof, Staff Director, Senate Committee on Regulated Industries (March 19. 2015) (on file with the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries). Section 893.02(3), F.S. " Section 893.03(I)(c)7. and 37., F.S. This penalty is applicable to possession or delivery of less than 20 grams of cannabis. See s. 893-13(3) and (6)(b), F S 20 Trafficking in more than 25 pounds, or 300 plants, of cannabis is a first degree felony with a mandatory minimum sentence that varies from 3 to 15 years in state prison depending on the quantity of the cannabis possessed, sold, etc. See s. 893.135(1)(a), F.S. '-' This term is defined in s. 893.145, F.S. L BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 7 store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance, is also prohibited and carries criminal penalties ranging from a first degree misdemeanor to a third degree felony. Z - Medical Marijuana in Florida: The Necessity Defense Despite the fact that the use, possession, and sale of marijuana are prohibited by state law, Florida courts have found that circumstances can necessitate medical use of marijuana and circumvent the application of criminal penalties. The necessity defense was successfully applied in a marijuana possession case in Jenks v. State 23 where the First District Court of Appeal found that "section 893.03 does not preclude the defense of medical necessity" for the use of marijuana if the defendant: • Did not intentionally bring about the circumstance which precipitated the unlawful act; • Could not accomplish the same objective using a less offensive alternative available; and • The evil sought to be avoided was more heinous than the unlawful act. In the cited case, the defendants, a married couple, were suffering from uncontrollable nausea due to AIDS treatment and had testimony from their physician that he could find no effective alternative treatment. Under these facts, the court found that the defendants met the criteria to qualify for the necessity defense and ordered an acquittal of the charges of cultivating cannabis and possession of drug paraphernalia. Medical Marijuana Laws in Other States Currently, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam 24 have some fonn of law that permits the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. These laws vary widely in detail but most are similar in that they touch on several recurring themes. Most state laws include the following in some form: • A list of medical conditions for which a practitioner can recommend the use of medical marijuana to a patient. o Nearly every state that permits the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes has a list of applicable medical conditions, though the particular conditions vary from state to state. Most states also include a way to expand the list either by allowing a state agency or board to add medical conditions to the list or by including a "catch-all" phrase. 21 Most states require that the patient receive certification from at least one, but often two, 2222 Section 893.147, F.S. Jenks v. Stare. 582 So.2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), review denied, 589 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1991) "These states include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. California was the first to establish a medical marijuana program in 1996 and New York was the most recent state to pass medical marijuana legislation in June 2014. The New York legislation became effective July 5, 2014. Eleven states allow limited access to marijuana products (low -THC and/or high CBD -cannabidiol). Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin. See http://www.nest-ore/research/health/state-medical-mariivana-laus.asox (last visited on March 27, 2015). 25 An example is California's law that includes "any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either: Substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patients safety or physical or mental'health " BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 physicians designating that the patient has a qualifying condition before the patient may be issued an identification card needed for the acquisition of medical marijuana. • Provisions for the patient to designate one or more caregivers who can possess the medical marijuana and assist the patient in preparing and using the medical marijuana. o The number of caregivers allowed and the qualifications to become a caregiver vary from state to state. Most states allow one or two caregivers and require that they be at least 21 years of age and, typically, cannot be the patient's physician. Caregivers are generally allowed to purchase or grow marijuana for the patient, be in possession of the allowed quantity of marijuana, and aid the patient in using the marijuana, but are strictly prohibited from using the marijuana themselves. • A required identification card for the patient, caregiver, or both that is typically issued by a state agency. • A registry of people who have been issued an identification card. • A method for registered patients and caregivers to obtain medical marijuana. o There are two general methods by which patients can obtain medical marijuana. They must either self -cultivate the marijuana in their homes or the state allows specified marijuana points -of -sale or dispensaries. The regulations governing such dispensaries vary widely. • General restrictions on where medical marijuana may be used. o Typically, medical marijuana may not be used in public places, such as parks and on buses, or in areas where there are more stringent restrictions placed on the use of drugs, such as in or around schools or in prisons. Most states with low -THC cannabis laws similar to s. 381.986, F.S., specify that the use of such low -THC cannabis is reserved for patients with epileptic or seizure disorders. Of the I 1 states with such laws, only Florida allows the treatment of cancer with low -THC cannabis. Additionally, the definition of low -THC cannabis differs from state to state. Iowa has the highest THC level allowed in such states at 3 percent and most other states have the level of THC restricted to below I percent. CBD levels are generally required to be high with most states requiring at least 10 percent CBD .26 State Medical Marijuana Laws and Their Interaction with the Federal Government The Federal Controlled Substances Act lists Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug with no accepted medical uses. Under federal law possession, manufacturing, and distribution of marijuana is a crime.'-' Although a state's medical marijuana laws protect patients from prosecution for the legitimate use of marijuana under the guidelines established in that state, such laws do not protect individuals from prosecution under federal law if the federal government decides to enforce those laws. In August 2013, the United States Justice Department (USDOJ) issued a publication entitled "Smart on Crime: Reforming the Criminal Justice System for the 21st Century." 21 This 26 Supra note 24, table 2. 2' The punishments vary depending on the amount of marijuana and the intent with which the marijuana is possessed. See bM //www fda eov/regulatoryinformationAegislation/ucm l48726.htm#cntlsbd (last visited on March 27, 2015) 21 See http //www iustice.gov/ag/smart-on-crime pd f (last visited on March 27. 2015). BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 document details the federal government's current stance on low-level drug crimes and contains the following passage: ... the Attorney General is announcing a change in Department of Justice charging policies so that certain people who have committed low-level, nonviolent drug offenses, who have no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels, will no longer be charged with offenses that impose draconian mandatory minimum sentences. Under the revised policy, these people would instead receive sentences better suited to their individual conduct rather than excessive prison terms more appropriate for violent criminals or drug kingpins. In addition, the USDOJ published, on August 29, 2013, a memorandum with the subject "Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement." This memorandum makes clear that the USDOJ considers small-scale marijuana use to be a state matter which states may choose to punish or not, and, while larger operations would fall into the purview of the USDOJ, those operations that adhere to state laws legalizing marijuana in conjunction with robust regulatory systems would be far less likely to come under federal scrutiny. 29 These announcements generally indicate the USDOJ's current unwillingness to prosecute such cases and its inclination to leave such prosecutions largely up to state authorities. Tetrahydrocannabinol THC is the major psychoactive constituent of marijuana. The potency of marijuana, in terns of psychoactivity, is dependent on THC concentration and is usually expressed as a percent of THC per dry weight of material. The average THC concentration in marijuana is I percent to 5 percent; the form of marijuana known as sinsemilla is derived from the unpollinated female cannabis plant and is preferred for its high THC content (up to 17 percent THC). Recreational doses are highly variable and users often concentrate their own dose. A single intake of smoke from a pipe or joint is called a hit (approximately 1/20th of a gram). The lower the potency or THC content the more hits are needed to achieve the desired effects. 30 Marinol is a currently -approved drug31 that consists of a man-made form of THC known as dornabinol.12 Marinol is used to treat anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to adequately respond to conventional antiemetic treatments. Marinol has a variety of side=effects including a cannabinoid dose-related "high."33 29 See USDOJ memo on "Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement," (August 29, 2013) available at htto://www.iustice.pov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf (last visited on March 27, 2015). 30 Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheet for Cannabis / Marijuana, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (April 2014) available at http://wvvw.nhtsa.gov/t)eople/injury/research/iobl85drugs/cannabis.htm (last visited on March 27, 2015). 31 The drug is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. 32 See http://www.marinol.com/about-marinol.cfm (last visited on March 27, 2015). "For Marinol prescribing information, see http://www.rxabbvie.com/pdf/marinol PLRdf (last visited on March 27, 2015) BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 10 Cannabidiol CBD is another cannabinoid that is found in marijuana and, although THC has psychoactive effects, CBD and other cannabinoids are not known to cause intoxication. 34 Some evidence shows that CBD is effective in treating seizure disorders," 16 although much of this evidence is anecdotal. Currently, the drug Epidiolex, which is a liquid form of highly purified CBD extract, was approved by the FDA in November 2013, as an orphan drug 37 that may be used to treat Dravet syndrome.3s,39 Dravet Syndrome Also known as Severe Myoclonic Epilepsy of Infancy (SMEI), Dravet syndrome is a rare form of intractable epilepsy that begins in infancy.40 Initial seizures are most often prolonged events and, in the second year of life, other seizure types begin to emerge. Individuals with Dravet syndrome face a higher incidence of SUDEP (sudden unexplained death in epilepsy) and typically have associated conditions that also need to be properly treated and managed. These conditions include: • Behavioral and developmental delays; • Movement and balance issues; • Orthopedic conditions, • Delayed language and speech issues. • Growth and nutrition issues: • Sleeping difficulties, • Chronic infections; • Sensory integration disorders; and • Disruptions of the autonomic nervous system (which regulates bodily functions such as temperature regulation and sweating). Individuals with Dravet syndrome do not outgrow the condition. Current treatment options are extremely limited and constant care and supervision are typically required. 34 This information is from GW Pharmaceuticals, see htto'//www.gw harm.cont/FAO.asox (last visited on March 27, 2015). 35 See Saundra Young, Marijuana Stops Child's Severe Seizures, CNN (August 7, 2013) available at httt //www enn com/2013/08/07fltealth/charlotte-child-medical-mariivana/ (last visited on March 27, 2015). "See also the presentation to the Florida House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on the Charlotte's Web strain of marijuana on January 9, 2014 " An orphan drug is defined as a drug that is intended for the safe and effective treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of rare diseases/disorders that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S., or that affect more than 200,000 persons but are not expected to recover the costs of developing and marketing a treatment drug. See http //www fda sov/forindustrv/DevelopinpProductsforrareDiscasesConditions/default htm. (last visited on March 27, 2015). 38 See h!W'//www gyMbarm com/LGS°/2OOrohan%20Desianation aspx (last visited on March 27, 2015). 39 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Dravet Syndrome h formation Page. See http //www.ninds.nih.szov/disorders/dravet syndrome/dravet syndrome him (last visited on March 27, 2015). i0 Dravet Syndrome Foundation, 91hat is Dravet Svndrone2 hap //www dravetfoundation ora/dravet-syndrome/what-is- dravet-syndrome (last visited on March 27, 2015). B1LL: CS/CS/SB 7066 111. Effect of Proposed Changes: Page 11 The bill significantly revises the provisions of s. 381.986, F.S., related to the compassionate use of low -THC cannabis. Definitions The bill amends s. 381.986(1), F.S., to define the terms "applicant," "batch," "harvest," "independent testing laboratory." and Flow -THC cannabis product." The bill defines the term "applicant" to mean a person 41 that has submitted an application to the department for licensure or renewal as a dispensing organization. The bill defines the term "independent testing laboratory" to mean a laboratory, and the managers, employees, or contractors of the laboratory, which have no direct or indirect interest in a dispensing organization. The definition of "low -THC cannabis product" includes, but are not limited to, oils, tinctures, creams, encapsulations, and food products. The definition provides that low -THC cannabis food products may not include candy or similar confectionary products that appeal to children. Patient Use of Low -THC Cannabis The bill amends s. 381.986(2), F.S., to revise the conditions for which low -THC cannabis may be ordered for a qualified patient's medical use. A physical medical condition that chronically produces symptoms of seizures or severe and persistent muscle spasms no longer qualifies as an eligible condition. Along with cancer, the following additional conditions qualify for the ordering of low -THC cannabis to qualified patients :4'- • Human immunodeficiency virus; • Acquired immune deficiency syndrome. • Epilepsy; • Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; • Autism; • Multiple sclerosis; • Crohn's disease; • Parkinson's disease; • Paraplegia; • Quadriplegia; or • Terminal illness. 41 Section 1.01(3), F.S., provides that in the Florida Statutes the term "person" includes individuals, children, firms, associations, joint adventures, partnerships, estates, trusts, business trusts, syndicates, fiduciaries, corporations, and all other groups or combinations. '= Anyone who fraudulently represents to a physician that he or she has at least one of the above conditions for the purpose of being ordered low -THC cannabis commits a first degree misdemeanor, which is punishable as provided in s. 775.082, F S , or s. 775.083, F.S , a sentence of a term of imprisonment up to I year may be imposed, along with a fine not to exceed $1,000 BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 12 The bill also revises the definition of "medical use" of low -THC cannabis to exclude the use of or administration of low -THC cananbis: • On any form of public transportation; • In any public place; • In a registered qualified patient's place of work, if restricted by his or her employer; • In a correctional facility; • On the grounds of any preschool; primary school, or secondary school; or • On a school bus. The bill provides that low -THC cannabis may be ordered to treat a listed disease, disorder, or condition; to alleviate symptoms of such disease, disorder, or condition; or to alleviate symptoms caused by a treatment for such disease, disorder, or condition. Requirements for Physicians The bill requires that the physician register the patient and the patient's legal representative. if requested by the patient, with the compassionate use registry established by the DOH. If the patient is a minor, the physician must register a legal representative with the registry. The bill also requires physicians to submit all requested medical records to the UFCP for research on the safety and efficacy of low -THC cannabis on patients, in addition to the patient treatment plan currently required. A physician who improperly orders low -THC cannabis is subject to disciplinary action under the applicable practice act and under s. 456.072(1)(k), F.S., addressing grounds for discipline. The bill also conforms the criminal penalties to the change in listed conditions required to qualify for low -THC cannabis for physicians and patients who fraudulent order or attempt to receive low -THC cannabis. Ditties and Powers of the Department The bill increases the number of DO licenses from 5 to 20 and requires, if more than 20 applicants meet the licensure criteria, that the DOH must determine the licensees by lottery - The bill amends s. 381.986(5)(b), F.S.. to provide the following time frame for the issuance of DO licenses: • Seven days after the effective date of the act the DOH must begin to accept applications for licensure and to review the applications to determine compliance with the license criteria. • Within 10 days of receiving an application, the DOH must notify the applicant of any errors in the application; • Applications for licensure must be filed with the DOH no later than 30 days after the effective date of this act; and • All applications must be complete no later than 60 days after the effective date of this act. Before the 751h day after the effective date of the act, the DOH must select by lottery two qualified applicants in each of the following regions: BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 13 • Northwest Florida, consisting of Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Taylor, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington counties. • Northeast Florida, consisting of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Hamilton; Lafayette, Levy, Marion, Nassau. Putnam, St. Johns, Suwannee, and Union counties. • Central Florida, consisting of Brevard, Citrus, Hardee, Hernando, Hillsborough, Indian River, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Seminole, St. Lucie, Sumter, and Volusia counties. • Southwest Florida, consisting of Charlotte, Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Manatee, Okeechobee, and Sarasota counties. • Southeast Florida, consisting of Broward, Miami -Dade, Martin, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties. After selecting by lottery the 10 dispensing organizations for the five regions, the DOH must select an additional 10 dispensing organizations. Dispensing organizations may not have cultivation or processing facilities outside the region in which it is licensed. The bill requires that selected applicants must pay the required licensure fee within 10 days of selection. If the selected applicant does not timely pay the licensure fee, the department must select another applicant from the existing pool of eligible applicants. If a dispensing organization has its license revoked or renewal application denied, the department must use a lottery to select a new DO within 24 hours after the revocation denial. If the department does not have sufficient applicants to issue two licenses for each region or to license the additional 10 dispensing organizations, the department must use the lottery process to every 6 months until each region has 2 licensed dispensing organizations and the 10 additional dispensing organizations are licensed. The bill provides that s. 381.986, F.S., is exempt from the license application process in s. 120.60(1), F.S. The bill deletes the requirement that the DOH must approve five DOs with one in northwest Florida, one in northeast Florida, one in central Florida, one in southeast Florida, and one in southwest Florida. It also deletes the license criteria in current law. Section 381.986(5)(c), F.S., specifies the identifying information that must be included in the initial licensure or renewal application. Section 381.986(5)(d), F.S., provides the following fees: • Initial application fee of $50,000. • Initial license fee of $125,000. • Biennial renewal fee of $125,000. BtLL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 14 Section 381.986(5)(e), F.S., requires the DOH to inspect each DO's properties, cultivation facilities, processing facilities, and retail facilities before they begin operations. The DOH must conduct inspections at least once every 2 years after licensure, but may conduct additional announced or unannounced inspections, including follow-up inspections, at reasonable hours in order to ensure that such property and facilities maintain compliance with all applicable requirements. The DO must make all facility premises, equipment, documents, low -THC cannabis, and low -THC cannabis products available to the DOH upon inspection. The DOH may test any low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis product in order to ensure that it is safe for human consumption and meets the testing requirements in s. 381.986(7), F.S. Section 381.986(5)(f), F.S., provides the grounds for revoking, suspending, denying, or refusing to renew a license, and for imposing an administrative penalty not to exceed $10,000, including a violation of any provision in s. 381.986, F.S., failure to maintain the qualifications for a license, and endangering the health, safety, and welfare of a qualified patient. Section 381.986(5)(g), F.S., requires the DOH to create a penmitting process for all vehicles used by DOs to transport low -THC cannabis and low -THC products. Dispensing Organization Applications The bill amends ss. 381.986(6)(a) -(b), F.S., to detail the criteria for the issuance or renewal of a DO license. It requires the DOH to review all applications for completeness and to inspect the applicant's property and facilities to verify the authenticity of the information provided in, or in connection with, the application. It provides that an applicant authorizes the DOH to inspect his or her property and facilities for licensure by applying for the license. The applicant must also have a $1 million performance and compliance bond, or other means of security deemed equivalent by the DOH, such as an irrevocable letter of credit or a deposit in a trust account or financial institution. The bond must be payable to the DOH, and posted once the applicant is approved as a DO. The purpose of the bond is to secure payment of any administrative penalties unposed by the DOH and any fees and costs incurred by the DOH regarding the DO license, such as the DO failing to pay 30 days after the fine or costs become final. The DOs must also employ a medical director who is a physician licensed under ch. 458, F.S., or ch. 459, F.S., to supervise the activities of the DO. An approved DO is required to maintain compliance with the license criteria at all times. Dispensing Low -THC Cannabis and Products Section 381.986(6)(c), F.S., requires DOs to verify the identity of the qualified patient or the legal representative before dispensing low -THC cannabis or low -THC product by requiring the person to produce a government issued identification. Section 381.986(6)(d), F.S., permits DOs to have cultivation facilities, processing facilities, and retail facilities. BtLL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 15 The bill preempts to the state all matters regarding the location of cultivation facilities and processing facilities. It requires that cultivation facilities and processing facilities must be closed to the public, and low -THC cannabis may not be dispensed on the premises of such facilities. The bill requires that a municipality or county determine by ordinance the criteria for the number, location, and other permitting requirements for all retail facilities located within that municipality or the unincorporated area of that county, respectively. A retail facility may only be established after a municipality or county has adopted such an ordinance. The bill states that retail facilities must have all utilities and resources necessary to store and dispense low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis products and that retail facilities must be secured and have theft -prevention systems including an alarm system, cameras, and 24-hour security personnel. Section 381.986(6)(e), F.S., requires that a DO provide the DOH with the following information within 15 days of such information becoming available: • The location of any new or proposed facilities; • Updated contact information for all DO facilities; • Registration information for any vehicles used for the transportation of low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis product; and • A plan for the recall of any or all low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis product. Section 381.986(6)(f), F.S., requires that all vehicles used to transport all low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products must have a permit issued by the DOH. The cost of the permit is $5. The permit must be in the vehicle whenever low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products is being transported. The vehicle must be driven by the person identified in the permit. By acceptance of a DO license and the use of the vehicles, the licensee agrees that the vehicle shall always be subject to be inspected and searched without a search warrant, for the purpose of ascertaining that the licensee is complying with all provisions of the act. The inspection may be trade during business hours or other times the vehicle is being used to transport low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products. Testing and Labeling of Low -THC Cannabis The bill creates s. 381.986(7), F.S., to require that all low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis products must be tested by an independent testing laboratory before the DO may dispense it. The independent testing laboratory shall provide the lab results to the DO, and the DO mast determine that the lab results indicate that the low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products meet the definition of low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis product, is safe for human consumption, and is free from harmful contaminants before it can be given to a patient. The bill requires that all low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis products must be labeled before dispensing, and specifies the information that must be included on the label, including the batch and harvest numbers. BILL: CS/CS/S13 7066 Safety and Efficacy Research for Law -THC Cannabis The bill creates s. 381.986(8), F.S., to require the UFCP to establish and maintain a safety and efficacy research program for the use of low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products to treat qualifying conditions and symptoms. The bill requires that the DOH provide the UFCP with access to information from the compassionate use registry and the PDMP database, established in s. 893.055, F.S., as needed to conduct research. The Agency for Healthcare Administration must also provide access to registered patient Medicaid records, to the extent allowed under federal law, as needed to conduct research. Prohibited Activities The bill amends s. 381.986(9), F.S., to prohibit the following person from making recommendations, offering prescriptions, or providing medical advice to qualified patients: • Persons who have direct or indirect interest in the dispensing organization; and • The dispensing organization's managers, employees, and contractors who directly interact with low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products. Exemptions to Other Laws The bill amends s. 381.986(10), F.S., to exempt the following persons from the prohibition against the possession of the controlled substance cannabis in ss. 893.13, 893.135, and 893.147. F.S., or any other provision of law. • The patient's qualified representative who is registered with the DOH on the compassionate use registry as a condition to having legal possession of low -THC cannabis; • The owners, managers, and employees of contractors of a DO who have direct contact with low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products; and • A licensed laboratory and its employees who receive and possess low -THC cannabis for the sole purpose of testing to ensure compliance. The bill clarifies that nothing in s. 381.986, F.S., exempts any person form the prohibition against driving under the influence in s. 326. 193. F.S. Legislative Ratification The bill creates s. 381-986(l 1), F S., to exempt rules of the DOH under this section from the ratification requirements of s. 120.541(3), F.S. Public Records Exceptions The bill revises the public records exemption relating to the compassionate use registry in s. 381.987, F.S., to permit OF employees to have access to the compassionate use registry for the purpose of maintaining the registry and periodic reporting or disclosure of information that has been redacted to exclude personal identifying information. It also permits persons engaged in research at the OF pursuant to s. 381.986(8), F.S., to have access to the registry. BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 17 The bill amends the public records exemption for the PDMP in ss. 893.055 and 893.055 1, F S., to pennit persons engaged in research at the OF pursuant to s. 381.986(8), F.S., to have access to information in the prescription drug monitoring program's database which relates to qualified patients as defined in s. 381.986(1), F.S., for the purpose of conducting research. Effective Date The bill is effective upon becoming law. IV. Constitutional Issues: A. Municipality/County Mandates Restrictions: None. B. Public Records/Open Meetings Issues: None. C. Trust Funds Restrictions: None. V. Fiscal Impact Statement: A. Tax/Fee Issues: Persons who apply for a DO license will incur costs in the preparation of the application. A dispensing organization must pay the fees required for applying for and obtaining a license. Section 381.986(5)(d), F.S., provides the following fees: • Initial application fee of $50,000, • Initial license fee of $125,000, and • Biennial renewal fee of $125,000. Section 381.986(6)(f), F.S., requires that all vehicles used to transport all low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products must have a permit issued by the DOH, and the permit cost is $5. B. Private Sector Impact: CS/CS/SB 7066 requires that all persons who have a direct or indirect interest in the DO and the applicant's managers, employees, and contractors who directly interact with low - THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products must be fingerprinted and successfully pass a level 2 background screening pursuant to s. 435.04, F.S. The amount of the fee for fingerprinting varies by vendor. For example, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation assesses a total fee of $54.50, which includes a $40.50 payment to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation BILL: CS/CS/S13 7066 to process the fingerprints, and an additional $14.00 processing charge to have the fingerprints scanned and submitted electronically. Page 18 Dispensing organizations may incur regulatory costs once licensed including costs for any violations for which they may be fined and costs for testing low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis product. A DO is also required to post a $1 million bond which will cover the costs of fines incurred from cited violations. C. Government Sector Impact: The DOH must accept and review applications for approval of licensure as a DO. Depending on the number of qualified applicants, a lottery may be needed to determine the selection of the qualified applicants for the 20 available licenses to be issued to DOS. The DOH may also incur costs for rulemaking and for the requirement to inspect DO facilities at least once every 2 years. VI. Technical Deficiencies: ?gone VII. Related Issues: None. VIII. Statutes Affected: This bill substantially amends the following sections of the Florida Statutes: 381.986, 331-957, 893.055, and 893.0551. IX. Additional Information: A. Committee Substitute — Statement of Substantial Changes: (Summarizing differences between the Committee Substitute and the prior version of the bill.) CS/CS by Rules Committee on April 9, 2015: The committee substitute: • Amends s. 381 986(1), F.S., to define the term "independent testing laboratory." • Amends the definition of "low -THC cannabis product" in s. 381.986(1)(g), F.S.. to provide that low -THC cannabis food products may not include candy or similar confectionary products that appeal to children. • Amends s. 381.986(2), F.S., to include autism among the conditions for which low - THC cannabis may be ordered by a physician for treatment. • Amends s. 381.986(5), F.S., to provide for the selection by lottery of two qualified applicants in each of the following defined regions: Northwest Florida, Northeast Florida, Central Florida, Southwest Florida, and Southeast Florida. It also provides for the selection by lottery the 10 additional dispensing organizations. • Amends s. 381.986(5)(b)8., F.S., to exempt this section from the license application process in s. 120 60(1), F.S., instead of s. 120.60, F.S. BILL: CS/CS/SB 7066 Page 19 • Amends s. 381.986(9), F.S., to prohibit persons who have direct or indirect interest in the dispensing organization, and the dispensing organization's managers, employees, and contractors who directly interact with low -THC cannabis or low -THC cannabis products from making recommendations, offering prescriptions, or providing medical advice to qualified patients. CS by Health Policy on March 31, 2015: The CS incorporates a number of amendments which: • Allow municipalities to determine by ordinance the number and location of retail facilities within the municipality's boundaries and allow counties to determine the number and location of retail facilities within unincorporated areas of the county; • Clarify that the DOH must use the same timeframes for future DO licensing cycles and lotteries as will be used for the first licensure cycle; • Clarify that retail facilities must have all utilities and resources necessary to store and dispense low -THC cannabis and low -THC cannabis products and that retail facilities must be secured and have certain theft -prevention systems; • Clarify that all law enforcement officials may stop and inspect permitted dispensing organization vehicles; • Clarify that patients using low -THC cannabis must adhere to laws regarding driving under the influence; and • Make several technical amendments including: o Correcting a drafting error so that a dispensing organization is run by a nurseryman and has been operated as a nursery for 30 years; and o Correcting a reference to low -THC cannabis. B. Amendments: None. This Senate Bill Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill's introducer or the Florida Senate. F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to the medical use of marijuana; 3 creating s. 381.99, F.S.; providing a short title; 4 creating s. 381.991, F.S.; defining terms; creating s. 5 381.992, F.S.; allowing registered patients and 6 designated caregivers to purchase, acquire, and 7 possess medical -grade marijuana subject to specified 8 requirements; allowing a cultivation and processing 9 licensee, employee, or contractor to acquire, 10 cultivate, transport, and sell marijuana under certain 11 circumstances; allowing a retail licensee to purchase, 12 receive, possess, store, dispense, and deliver 13 marijuana under certain circumstances; allowing a 14 licensed laboratory to receive marijuana for 15 certification purposes; prohibiting certain actions 16 regarding the acquisition, possession, transfer, use, 17 and administration of marijuana; clarifying that a 18 person is prohibited from driving under the influence 19 of marijuana; creating s. 381.993, F.S.; specifying 20 registration requirements for a patient identification 21 card; allowing a qualified patient to designate a 29 caregiver subject to certain requirements; requiring 23 notification by the Department of Health of the denial 24 of a designated caregiver's registration; requiring 25 the department to create certain patient registration 26 and certification forms for availability by a Page 1 of 30 CODING: Words stkken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S R1 specified date; requiring the department to update a patient registry and issue an identification card under certain circumstances within a specified timeframe; specifying the requirements of the identification card, including expiration and renewal requirements; providing notification and return requirements if the department removes the patient or caregiver from the registry; creating s. 381.994, F.S.; requiring the department to create an online patient registry by a specified date subject to certain requirements; creating s. 381.995, F.S.; requiring the department to establish standards and develop and accept licensure application forms for the cultivation, processing, and sale of marijuana by a specified date subject to certain requirements; providing for an initial application fee, a licensure fee, and a renewal fee for specified licenses; requiring the department to issue certain licenses by specified dates; specifying requirements for a cultivation and processing license, including expiration and renewal requirements; specifying facility requirements for a cultivation and processing licensee, including inspections and the issuance of cultivation and processing facility licenses; allowing a dispensing organization to use a contractor to cultivate and process marijuana subject to certain Page 2 of 30 CODING: Words s#iskee are deletions; words underlined are additions. 2015 hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F HB 683 R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 53 requirements; directing a dispensing organization or 54 contractor to destroy all marijuana byproducts under 55 certain conditions within a specified timeframe; 56 allowing a cultivation and processing licensee to 57 sell, transport, and deliver marijuana products under 58 certain circumstances; prohibiting the Department of 59 Health from licensing retail facilities in a county 60 unless the board of county commissioners for that 61 county determines by ordinance the number and location 62 of retail facilities subject to certain limitations; 63 specifying the application requirements for a retail 64 license; requiring the department to consider certain 65 factors when issuing retail licenses to encourage a 66 competitive marketplace; providing expiration and 67 renewal requirements for a retail license; requiring 68 inspection of a retail facility before dispensing 69 marijuana; providing dispensing requirements; allowing 70 retail licensees to contract with certain types of 71 carriers to deliver marijuana under certain 72 circumstances; prohibiting a licensee from advertising 73 marijuana products; specifying inspection, license, 74 and testing requirements for certain facilities; 75 requiring the department to create standards and 76 impose penalties for a dispensing organization subject 77 to certain restrictions; requiring the department to 78 maintain a public, online list of all licensed retail Page 3 of 30 CODING: Words stkkea are deletions; words underlined are additions. 2015 hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 2015 79 facilities; creating s. 381.996, F.S.; providing 80 patient certification requirements relating to 81 qualified patients; requiring a physician to transfer 82 an order and update the registry subject to certain 83 requirements and time restraints; requiring physician 84 education; creating s. 381.997, F.S.; requiring 85 testing, certification, and reporting of results by an 86 independent laboratory before distribution or sale of 87 marijuana or marijuana products; providing package and 88 label requirements; requiring the department to 89 establish quality standards and testing procedures by 90 a certain date; creating s. 381.998, F.S.; providing 91 criminal penalties; creating s. 381.999, F.S.; 92 establishing that this act does not require or 93 restrict health insurance coverage for the purchase of 94 medical -grade marijuana; creating s. 381.9991, F.S.; 95 providing rulemaking authority; providing an effective 96 date. 97 96 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 99 100 Section 1. Section 381.99, Florida Statutes, is created to 101 read: 102 381.99 Short title.—Sections 381.99-381.9991 may be cited 103 as "The Florida Medical Marijuana Act." 104 Section 2. Section 381.991, Florida Statutes, is created Page 4 of 30 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 HB 683 to read: 381.991 term: H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 2015 Definitions.—As used in ss. 381.991-381.9991 the (1) "Allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana" means the amount of medical -grade marijuana, or the equivalent amount in processed form, which a physician may determine is necessary to treat a registered patient's qualifying condition for 30 days. (2) "Batch" means a specifically identified quantity of processed marijuana that is uniform in strain; cultivated using the same herbicides pesticides, and fungicides; and harvested at the same time from a single licensed cultivation and processing facility. (3) "Cultivation and processing facility" means a facility licensed by the department for the cultivation of marijuana, the processing of marijuana, or both. (4) "Cultivation and processing license" means a license issued by the department which authorizes the licensee to cultivate or process, or to both cultivate and process, marijuana at one or more cultivation and processing facilities. (5) "Department" means the Department of Health. (6) "Designated caregiver" means a person who is registered with the department as the caregiver for one or more registered patients. (7) "Dispense" means the transfer or sale at a retail facility of the allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana from a dispensing organization to a registered patient or the patient's Page 5 of 30 CODING: Words strisken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 I.I•I-t-N designated caregiver. (8) "Dispensing organization" means an organization that holds a cultivation and processing license, a retail license, or both. (9) "Identification card" means a card issued by the department only to registered patients and designated caregivers. (10) "Marijuana" has the same meaning as the term "cannabis" in s. 893.02. (11) "Medical -grade marijuana" means marijuana that has been tested in accordance with s. 381.997; meets the standards established by the department for sale to registered patients; and is packaged, labeled, and ready to be dispensed. (12) "Medical marijuana patient registry" means an online electronic registry created and maintained by the department to store identifying information for all registered patients and designated caregivers. (13) "Medical use" means the acquisition, possession, transportation, use, and administration of the allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana. The term does not include the use or administration of medical -grade marijuana by, or possession of medical -grade marijuana for, smoking. (14) "Physician" means a physician who is licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, has an effective federal Drug Enforcement Administration Registration number, and meets the requirements of s. 381.996(4). Page 6 of 30 CODING: Words strio#ea are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 157 (15) "Qualified patient" means a resident of this state 158 who has been certified by a physician and diagnosed as suffering 159 from: 160 (a) Cancer; 161 (b) Positive status for human immunodeficiency virus 162 -(HIV) ; 163 (c) Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS); 164 (d) Epilepsy; 165 (e) Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); 166 (f) Multiple sclerosis; 167 (g) Crohn's disease; 168 (h) Parkinson's disease; or 169 (i) A terminal illness. 170 (16) "Registered patient" means a qualified patient who 171 has registered with the department and has been issued a medical 172 marijuana registry identification card. 173 (17) "Retail facility" means a facility licensed by the 174 department to dispense medical -grade marijuana to registered 175 patients and caregivers. 176 (18) "Retail license" means a license issued by the 177 department which authorizes the licensee to dispense medical - 178 grade marijuana to registered patients and caregivers from a 179 retail facility. 180 (19) "Terminal illness" means a medical prognosis, as 181 determined by a physician, with a life expectancy of 1 year or 182 less if the illness runs its normal course. Page 7 of 30 CODING: Words stAsken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R EP RES ENTATIVES I:MIN 2015 183 Section 3. Section 381.992, Florida Statutes, is created 184 to read: 185 381.992 Medical -grade marijuana. - 186 (1) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or 187 any other law, but subject to the requirements in ss. 381.991- 188 381.9991, a registered patient or his or her designated 189 caregiver may purchase, acquire, and possess up to the allowed 190 amount of medical -grade marijuana, including paraphernalia, for 191 that patient's medical use. In order to maintain the protections 192 under this section, a registered patient or his or her 193 designated caregiver must demonstrate that: 194 (a) He or she is legally in possession of the medical - 195 grade marijuana, by producing his or her medical marijuana 196 identification card; and 197 (b) Any marijuana in his or her possession is within the 198 registered patient's allowed amount of marijuana, by producing a 199 receipt from the dispensing organization. 200 (2) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or 201 any other law, but subject to the requirements in ss. 381.991- 202 381.9991, a cultivation and processing licensee and an employee 203 or contractor of a cultivation and processing licensee may 204 acquire, cultivate, and possess marijuana while on the property 205 of a cultivation and processing facility; may transport 206 marijuana between licensed facilities owned by the licensee; may 207 transport marijuana to independent laboratories for 208 certification as medical -grade marijuana; and may transport and Page 8 of 30 CODING: Wards str Gken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A .L•IY3 H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 2015 209 sell medical -grade marijuana to retail facilities. 210 (3) Notwithstanding s. 893.13, s. 893.135, s. 893.147, or 211 any other law, but subject to the requirements in ss. 381.991- 212 381 9991 a retail licensee and an employee of a retail licensee 213 may purchase and receive medical -grade marijuana from a 214 cultivation and processing licensee or its employee or 215 contractor• may possess store and hold medical -grade marijuana 216 for retail sale• and may dispense the allowed amount of medical - 217 grade marijuana to a registered patient or designated caregiver 218 at a retail facility• A retail licensee and an employee or 219 contractor of a retail licensee may deliver medical -grade 220 marijuana to the residence of a registered patient. 221 (4) Notwithstanding s 893 13, s. 893.135 s. 893.147, or 222 any other law, but subject to the requirements in ss. 381.991- 223 381.9991, a licensed laboratory and an employee of an 224 independent testing laboratory may receive and possess marijuana 225 for the sole purpose of testing the marijuana for certification 226 as medical -grade marijuana. 227 (5) This section does not authorize: 22B (a) The acquisition purchase transportation, use, 229 possession or administration of any type of marijuana other 230 than medical -grade marijuana by a registered patient or 231 designated caregiver. 232 (b) The use of medical -grade marijuana by anyone other 233 than the registered patient for whom the medical -grade marijuana 234 was ordered. Page 9 of 30 CODING: Words s#isken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 235 (c) The transfer or administration of medical -grade 236 marijuana to anyone other than the registered patient for whom 237 the medical -grade marijuana was ordered. 238 (d) The acquisition or purchase of medical -grade marijuana 239 by a registered patient or designated caregiver from an entity 240 other than a dispensing organization that has a retail license. 241 (e) A registered patient or designated caregiver to 242 transfer medical -grade marijuana to a person other than the 243 patient for whom the medical -grade marijuana was ordered or to 244 any entity except for the purpose of returning unused medical - 245 grade marijuana to a dispensing organization. 246 (f) The recommendation of medical -grade marijuana to a 247 minor without the written consent of a parent or guardian. 248 (g) The use or administration of medical -grade marijuana: 249 1. On any form of public transportation. 250 2. In any public place. 251 3. In a registered patient's place of work, if restricted 252 by his or her employer. 253 (h) The possession, use, or administration of medical - 254 grade marijuana: 255 1. In a state correctional institution, as defined in s. 256 944.02(8), or a correctional institution, as defined in s. 257 944.241(2)(a); 258 2. On the grounds of any preschool, primary school, or 259 secondary school; or 260 3. On a school bus. Page 10 of 30 CODING: Words strac-ken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 261 (6) This section does not exempt any person from the 262 prohibition against driving under the influence provided in s. 263 316.193. 264 Section 4. Section 381.993, Florida Statutes, is created 265 to read: 266 381.993 Medical marijuana patient and designated caregiver 267 registration. - 268 (1) In order to register for an identification card, a 269 qualified patient must submit to the department: 270 (a) A patient registration form; 271 (b) Proof of Florida residency; and 272 (c) A passport -style photograph taken within the previous 273 90 days. 274 (2) For a qualified patient to be registered and to 275 receive an identification card, a physician must submit a 276 patient -certification form directly to the department which 277 includes certification by the physician that the patient suffers 278 from one or more qualifying conditions specified in s. 279 381.991(15). 280 (3) If a qualified patient is under 21 years of age, a 281 second physician must also submit a patient -certification form 282 that meets the requirements of subsection (2). 283 (4) The patient -certification form may be submitted 284 through the department website. 285 (5) A qualified patient may, at initial registration or 286 while a registered patient, designate a caregiver to assist him Page 11 of 30 CODING: Words stfiskon are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 2871 or her with the medical use of medical -grade marijuana. A 288 designated caregiver must be at least 21 years of age and must 289 meet the background screening requirements in s. 408.809 unless 290 the caregiver is assisting only his or her own spouse, parents, 291 children, or siblings. A designated caregiver may not be 292 registered to assist more than one patient at any given time 293 unless: 294 (a) All of the caregiver's registered patients are the 295 caregiver's parents, siblings, or children; 296 (b) All of the caregiver's registered patients are first 297 degree relations to each other who share a residence; and 298 (c) All of the caregiver's registered patients reside in 299 an assisted living facility, nursing home, or other such 300 facility and the caregiver is an employee of that facility. 301 (6) If the department determines, for any reason, that a 302 caregiver designated by a registered patient may not assist that 303 patient, the department must notify that patient of the denial 304 of the designated caregiver's registration. 305 (7) The department must create a registration form and a 306 patient -certification form and make the forms available to the 307 public by January 1, 2016. The registration form must require 306 the patient to include, at a minimum, the information required 309 to be on the patient's identification card and on his or her 310 designated caregiver's identification card if the patient is 311 designating a caregiver. 312 (8) Beginning on July 1, 2016, when the department Page 12 of 30 CODING: Words striskee are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 313 receives a registration form the supporting patient - 314 certification form and proof of the patient's residency, the 315 department must, within 14 days: 316 (a) Enter the qualified patient's and his or her 317 designated caregiver's information into the medical marijuana 318 patient registry; and 319 (b) Issue an identification card to the qualified patient 320 and to that patient's designated caregiver, if applicable. The 321 department is not required to issue an additional identification 322 card to a designated caregiver who already possesses a valid 323 identification card when that caregiver becomes registered as 324 the caregiver for additional registered patients unless the 325 required information has changed. The expiration date for a 326 designated caregiver's identification card must coincide with 327 the last occurring expiration date on the identification card of 328 the 2atient the caregiver is registered to assist. 329 (9) Identification cards issued to registered patients and 330 designated caregivers must be resistant to counterfeiting and 331 include, but not be limited to, all of the following 332 information: 333 (a) The person's full legal name. 334 (b) The person's photograph. 335 (c) A randomly assigned identification number. 336 (d) The expiration date of the identification card. 337 (10) Except as provided in paragraph (8)(b), patient and 338 careaiver identification cards expire 1 year after the date they Page 13 of 30 CODING: Words striskea are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S OL•I�iI�1 3391 are issued. In order to renew an identification card, a 2015 340 qualified patient must submit proof of continued residency and a 341 342 physician (a) must certify to the department: That he or she has examined the patient during the 343 course of the patient's treatment with medical -grade marijuana. 344 (b) That the patient suffers from one or more qualifying 345 346 conditions. (c) That, in the physician's good faith medical judgment, 347 the use of medical -grade marijuana gives the patient some relief 348 349 from the symptoms (d) of the qualifying condition. The allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana that the 350 351 physician (11) orders for the patient's use. Should the department become aware of information 352 that would disqualify a patient or caregiver from being 353 registered, the department must notify that person of the change 354 355 in his or (a) her status as follows: For registered patients, the department must give 356 notice at least 30 days before removing that patient from the 357 registry. The patient must return all medical -grade marijuana, 358 medical -grade marijuana products, and his or her identification 359 card to a retail facility within 30 days after receiving such 360 notice. A dispensing organization must notify the department 361 within 24 hours after it has received such a return. Such 362 363 notification may be submitted electronically. (b) For designated caregivers, the department must give 364 notice to the registered patient and the designated caregiver at Page 14 of 30 CODING: Words stfidken are deletions; words underlined are additions, hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 HB 683 2015 least 15 days before removinq a caregiver from the registry. The caregiver must return his or her identification card to a retail facility within 15 days after receiving such notice. A dispensing organization must notify the department within 24 hours after it has received such a return. Such notification may be submitted electronically. Section 5. Section 381.994, Florida Statutes, is created to read: 381.994 Electronic medical marijuana patient registr (1) By July 1 2016, the department must create a secure, online, electronic medical marijuana patient registry containing a file for each registered patient and caregiver and for each certifying physician consisting of, but not limited to, all of the £ollowinq: (a) For patients and caregivers: 1. His or her full legal name; 2. His or her photograph; 3. The randomly assigned identification number on his or her identification card; and 4. The expiration date of the identification card. (b) For physicians, the physician's full legal name and license number. (c) For a registered patient: 1 The full legal name of his or her designated caregiver, if any; 2. His or her allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana; Page 15 of 30 CODING: Words stkken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 3911 and 392 3. The concentration ranges of specified cannabinoids, if 393 any, ordered by the patient's certifying physician. 394 (d) For a designated caregiver: 395 1. The full legal name or names of all registered patients 396 whom the caregiver is registered to assist; 397 2. The allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana for each 398 patient the caregiver is registered to assist; and 399 3. The concentration ranges of specified cannabinoids, if 400 any, ordered by the certifying physician for each respective 401 patient the caregiver is registered to assist. 402 (e) The date and time of dispensing, and the allowed 403 amount of medical -grade marijuana dispensed, for each of that 404 registered patient's or caregiver's transactions with the 405 dispensing organization. 406 (2) The registry must be able to: 407 (a) Be accessed by a retail licensee or employee to verify 406 the authenticity of a patient identification card, to verify the 409 allowed amount and any specified type of medical -grade marijuana 410 ordered by his or her physician, and to determine the prior 411 dates on which and times at which medical -grade marijuana was 412 dispensed to the patient and the amount dispensed on each 413 occasion; 414 (b) Accept in real time the original and updated orders 415 for medical -grade marijuana from certifying physicians; 416 (c) Be accessed by law enforcement agencies in order to Page 16 of 30 CODING: Words s#+skea are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 417 verify patient or caregiver authorization for possession of an 418 allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana; and 419 (d) Accept and post initial and updated information to 420 each registered patient's file from the dispensing organization 421 that shows the date, time, and amount of medical -grade marijuana 422 dispensed to that patient at the point of sale. 423 Section 6. Section 381.995, Florida Statutes, is created 424 to read: 425 381.995 Dispensing organizations. - 426 (1) By January 1, 2016, the department shall establish 427 operating standards for the cultivation, processing, packaging, 428 and labeling of marijuana, establish standards for the sale of 429 medical -grade marijuana develop licensure application forms for 430 cultivation and processing licenses and retail licenses, make 431 such forms available to the public, establish procedures and 432 requirements for cultivation facility licenses and renewals and 433 processing facility licenses and renewals, and begin accepting 434 applications for licensure. The department may charge an initial 435 application fee of up to $100,000 for cultivation and processing 436 licenses and up to $10,000 for retail licenses, a licensure fee, 437 and a license renewal fee as necessary to pay for all expenses 438 incurred by the department in administering this section. 439 (2) The department must begin issuing cultivation and 440 processing licenses by March 1, 2016, and retail licenses by 441 July 1, 2016. 442 (3) The department may issue a cultivation and processing Page 17 of 30 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F •:.: R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 2015 443 license to an applicant who provides: 444 (a) A completed cultivation and processing license 445 application form; 446 (b) The initial application fee; 447 (c) The legal name of the applicant; 448 (d) The physical address of each location where marijuana 449 will be cultivated and processed; 450 (e) The name, address, and date of birth of each principal 451 officer and board member, if applicable; 452 (f) The name, address, and date of birth of each of the 453 applicant's current employees who will participate in the 454 operations of the dispensing organization; 455 (g) Proof that all principals and employees of the 456 applicant have passed a level 2 background screening pursuant to 457 chapter 435 within the prior year; 458 (h) Proof of an established infrastructure or the ability 459 to establish an infrastructure in a reasonable amount of time 460 designed to cultivate, process, test, package, and label 461 marijuana and to deliver medical -grade marijuana to retail 462 facilities throughout the state; 463 (i) Proof that the applicant possesses the technical and 464 technological ability to cultivate and process medical -grade 465 marijuana; 466 (j) Proof of operating procedures designed to secure and 467 maintain accountability for all marijuana and marijuana -related 468 byproducts it may possess; Page 18 of 30 CODING: Words s#Ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 469 (k) Proof of the financial ability to maintain operations 470 for the duration of the license; 471 (1) Proof of at least $1 million of hazard and liability 472 insurance for each cultivation and processing facility; and 473 (m) A $5 million performance and compliance bond, to be 474 forfeited if the licensee fails to maintain its license for the 475 duration of the licensure period or fails to comply with the 476 substantive requirements of this subsection and applicable 477 agency rules for the duration of the licensure period. 478 (4) A cultivation and processing license expires 2 years 479 after the date it is issued. The licensee must apply for a 480 renewed license before the expiration date. In order to receive 481 a renewed license, a cultivation and processing licensee must 482 demonstrate continued compliance with the requirements in 483 subsection (3) and have no outstanding substantial violations of 484 the standards established by the department for the cultivation, 485 processing, packaging, and labeling of marijuana and medical - 486 grade marijuana. 487 (5) A cultivation and processing licensee may cultivate 488 marijuana at one or more facilities only if each facility used 489 for cultivation has been inspected by the department and issued 490 a cultivation facility license. A cultivation and processing 491 licensee may process marijuana at one or more processing 492 facilities only if each facility used for processing has been 493 inspected by the department and issued a processing facility 494 license. A cultivation and processing licensee may cultivate and Page 19 of 30 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 495 process marijuana at the same facility only if that facility has 496 been inspected by the department and issued both a cultivation 497 facility license and a processing facility license. Each 498 cultivation and processing facility must be secure and closed to 499 the public and may not be located within 1,000 feet of an 500 existing public or private elementary or secondary school, a 501 child care facility licensed under s. 402.302, or a licensed 502 service provider offering substance abuse services. The 503 department may establish by rule additional security and zoning 504 requirements for cultivation and processing facilities. All 505 matters regarding the licensure and regulation of cultivation 506 and processing facilities, including the location of such 507 facilities, are preempted to the state. 508 (6) Before beginning cultivation or processing at a 509 facility, that facility must be inspected and licensed as a 510 cultivation facility, a processing facility, or both by the 511 department. A cultivation and processing licensee may cultivate 512 and process marijuana only for the purpose of producing medical - 513 grade marijuana and may do so only at a licensed cultivation and 514 processing facility. Such processing may include, but is not 515 limited to, processing marijuana into medical -grade marijuana 516 and processing medical -grade marijuana into various forms 517 including, but not limited to, topical applications, oils, and 518 food products for a registered patient's use. A dispensing 519 organization may use a contractor to cultivate the marijuana, to 520 process marijuana into medical -grade marijuana, or to process Page 20 of 30 CODING: Words stdaken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 5211 the medical -grade marijuana into other forms, but the dispensin 522 organization is responsible for all of the operations performed 523 by each contractor relating to the cultivation and processing of 524 marijuana and the physical possession of all marijuana and 525 medical -grade marijuana. All work done by a contractor must be 526 performed at a licensed cultivation and processing facility. All 527 marijuana byproducts that are unable to be processed or 528 reprocessed into medical -grade marijuana must be destroyed by 529 the dispensing organization or its contractor within 48 hours 530 after processing is completed. 531 (7) A cultivation and processing licensee may transport, 532 or contract to have transported, marijuana and marijuana 533 products to independent testing laboratories to be tested and 534 certified as medical -grade marijuana. 535 (8) A cultivation and processing licensee may sell, 536 transport, and deliver medical -grade marijuana and medical -grade 537 marijuana products to retail licensees throughout the state. 538 (9) The department may not license any retail facilities 539 in a county unless the board of county commissioners for that 540 county determines by ordinance the number and location of any 541 retail facilities that may be located within that county. A 542 retail facility may not be located on the same property as a 543 facility licensed for cultivation or processing of marijuana or 544 within 1,000 feet of an existing public or private elementary or 545 secondary school, a child care facility licensed under s. 546 402.302, or a licensed service provider that offers substance Page 21 of 30 CODING: Words str eken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 5471 abuse services. 548 (10) _An applicant for a retail license must provide the 549 department with at least all of the following: 550 (a) A completed retail license application form. 551 (b) The initial application fee. 552 (c) The full legal name of the applicant. 553 (d) The physical address of the retail facility where 554 marijuana will be dispensed. 555 (e) Identifying information for all other current or 556 previous retail licenses held by the applicant. 557 -(f ) The name, address, and date of birth for each of the 558 applicant's principal officers and board members. 559 (g) The name, address, and date of birth of each of the 560 applicant's current employees who will participate in the 561 operations of the dispensing organization. 562 (h) Proof that all principals and employees of the 563 applicant have passed a level 2 background screening pursuant to 564 chapter 435 within the prior year. 565 (i) Proof of an established infrastructure or the ability 566 to establish an infrastructure in a reasonable amount of time 567 which is designed to receive medical -grade marijuana from 568 cultivation and processing facilities, the ability to maintain 569 the security of the retail facility to prevent theft or 570 diversion of any medical marijuana product received, the ability 571 to correctly dispense the allowed amount and specified type of 572 medical -grade marijuana to a registered patient or his or her Page 22 of 30 CODING: Words s#ieken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F P, E P R E S E N T A T I V E S H8 683 2015 5731 desianated caregiver pursuant to a physician's order, the 574 ability to check the medical marijuana patient registry, and the 575 ability to electronically update the medical marijuana patient 576 registry with dispensing information. 577 (j) Proof of operating procedures designed to secure and 578 maintain accountability for all medical -grade marijuana and 579 products that it may receive and possess. 580 (k) Proof of the financial ability to maintain operations 581 for the duration of the license. 582 (1) Proof of at least $500,000 of hazard and liability 583 insurance for each license. 584 (m) A $1 million performance and compliance bond, for each 585 license, to be forfeited if the licensee fails to maintain the 586 license for the duration of the licensure period or fails to 587 comply with the requirements of this subsection for the duration 588 of the licensure period. 589 (11) The department may issue multiple retail licenses to 590 a single qualified entity; however, to encourage a competitive 591 marketplace, when multiple entities have applied for a license 592 in the same county, in addition to the qualifications of each 593 applicant, the department shall consider the number of retail 594 licenses currently held by each applicant and the number of 595 separate entities that hold retail licenses within the same 596 geographic area. 597 (12) A retail license expires 2 years after the date it is 598 issued. The retail licensee must reapply for renewed licensure Page 23 of 30 CODING: Words stkkeR are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 599 before the expiration date. In order to qualify for a renewed 600 license, a retail licensee must meet all the requirements for 601 initial licensure and have no outstanding substantial violations 602 of the applicable standards established by the department. 603 (13) Before beginning to dispense, each retail facility 604 must be inspected by the department. Retail licensees may 605 dispense the allowed amount of medical -grade marijuana to a 606 registered patient or the patient's designated caregiver only if 607 the dispensing organization's employee: 608 (a) Verifies the authenticity of the patient's or 609 caregiver's identification card with the medical marijuana 610 patient registry; 611 (b) Verifies the physician's order for medical -grade 612 marijuana with the medical marijuana patient registry; 613 (c) Determines that the registered patient has not been 614 dispensed the allowed amount of marijuana within the previous 30 615 days; 616 (d) Issues the registered patient or the patient's 617 caregiver a receipt that details the date and time of 618 dispensing, the amount of medical -grade marijuana dispensed, and 619 the person to whom the medical -grade marijuana was dispensed; 620 and 621 (e) Updates the medical marijuana patient registry with 622 the date and time of dispensing and the amount and type of 623 medical -grade marijuana being dispensed to the registered 624 patient before dispensing to that patient or that patient's Page 24 of 30 CODING: Words 6ttisken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A HB 683 H O U S E O F REP RES ENTATIVES 2015 625 designated caregiver. 626 (14) Retail licensees may contract with licensed and 627 bonded carriers to transport medical -grade marijuana and 628 medical -grade marijuana products between properties owned by the 629 licensee and to deliver it to the residence of a registered 630 patient. 631 (15) A licensee under the Florida Medical Marijuana Act 632 may not advertise its marijuana products. 633 (16) The department must inspect and license each 634 dispensing organization's cultivation and processing facilities 635 and retail facilities before those facilities begin operations. 636 The department must also inspect each licensed facility at least 637 once every 2 years The department may also conduct additional 638 announced or unannounced inspections at reasonable hours in 639 order to ensure that such facilities meet the standards set by 640 the department. The department may test any marijuana, marijuana 641 product, medical -grade marijuana, or medical -grade marijuana 642 product in order to ensure that such marijuana, marijuana 643 product, medical -grade marijuana, or medical -grade marijuana 644 product meets the standards established by the department. The 645 department may, by interagency agreement with the Department of 646 Business and Professional Regulation or with the Department of 647 Agriculture and Consumer Services perform joint inspections of 648 such facilities with those agencies. 649 (17) The department must create a schedule of violations 650 in rule in order to impose reasonable fines not to exceed Page 25 of 30 CODING: Words s#iskeff are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S 2015 651 $10,000 on a dispensing organization. In determining the amount 652 of the fine to be levied for a violation, the department shall 653 consider: 654 (a) The severity of the violation; 655 (b) Any actions taken by the dispensing organization to 656 correct the violation or to remedy complaints; and 657 (c) Any previous violations. 658 (18) The department may suspend, revoke, or refuse to 659 renew the license of a dispensing organization or of an 660 individual facility for violations of the standards established 661 by the department. 662 (19) The department shall maintain a publicly available, 663 easily accessible list on its website of all licensed retail 664 facilities. 665 Section 7. Section 381.996, Florida Statutes, is created 666 to read: 667 381.996 Patient certification. - 668 (1) A physician may certify a patient to the department as 669 a qualified patient if: 670 (a) The physician has seen the patient on a regular basis 671 to treat a qualifying condition for a period of at least 3 672 months immediately preceding the patient's submission of a 673 patient registration form to the department. 674 (b) The physician believes, in his or her good faith 675 medical judgment, the patient suffers from one or more of the 676 qualifying conditions. Page 26 of 30 CODING: Words stkken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R EP RES ENTATIVES HB 683 2015 677 (2) After certifying a patient, the physician must 678 electronically transfer an original order for medical -grade 679 marijuana for that patient to the medical marijuana patient 680 registry. Such order must include, at a minimum, the allowed 681 amount of medical -grade marijuana and the concentration ranges 662 for individual cannabinoids, if any. The physician must also 683 update the registry with any changes in the specifications of 684 his or her order for that patient within 7 days. 685 (3) If the physician becomes aware that the patient no 686 longer suffers from his or her qualifying condition or if the 687 physician's order for the allowed amount of medical marijuana 688 changes for that patient, the physician must update the registry 689 with the new information within 7 days. 690 (4) In order to qualify to issue patient certifications 691 for medical -grade marijuana, and before ordering medical -grade 692 marijuana for any patient, a physician must successfully 693 complete an 8 -hour course and subsequent examination offered by 694 the Florida Medical Association or the Florida Osteopathic 695 Medical Association, as appropriate, which encompasses the 696 clinical indications for the appropriate use of medical -grade 697 marijuana the appropriate delivery mechanisms, the 698 contraindications of the use of medical -grade marijuana, and the 699 relevant state and federal laws governing ordering, dispensing, 700 and possession. The appropriate boards shall offer the first 701 course and examination by October 1, 2015, and shall administer 702 them at least annually thereafter. Successful completion of the Page 27 of 30 CODING: Words strisken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H 0 U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 703 course may be used by a physician to satisfy 8 hours of the 704 continuing medical education requirements imposed by his or her 705 respective board for licensure renewal. This course may be 706 offered in a distance -learning format. Successful completion of 707 the course and examination is required for every physician who 708 orders medical -grade marijuana each time such physician renews 709 his or her license. 710 Section 8. Section 381.997, Florida Statutes, is created 711 to read: 712 381.997 Medical -grade marijuana testing and labeling. - 713 (1) A cultivation and processing licensee may not 714 distribute or sell medical -grade marijuana or product to a 715 retail licensee unless the batch of origin of that marijuana or 716 product has been tested by an independent testing laboratory and 717 the cultivation and processing licensee has received test 718 results from that laboratory which certify that the batch meets 719 the quality standards established by the department. 720 (2) When testing a batch of marijuana or product a testing 721 laboratory must, at a minimum, test for unsafe contaminants and 722 for presence and concentration of individual cannabinoids. 723 (3) Each testing laboratory must report its findings for 724 each batch tested to the cultivation and processing licensee 725 from which the batch originated and to the department. Such 726 findings must include, at a minimum, the license number or 727 numbers of the processing and cultivation facility from which 728 the batch originated, the size and batch number of the batch Page 28 of 30 CODING: Words stkken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 729 tested, the types of tests performed on the batch, and the 730 results of each test. 731 (4) Before distribution or sale to a retail licensee, any 732 medical -grade marijuana that meets department testing standards 733 must be packaged in a child -resistant container and labeled with 734 at least the name and license number of the cultivation and 735 processing licensee, the license number of the facility or 736 facilities where the batch was harvested and processed, the 737 harvest or production batch number, the concentration range of 738 each individual cannabinoid present at testing, and any other 739 labeling requirements established in Florida or federal law or 740 rules for that form of the product. For the purposes of this 741 subsection, any oil-based extraction meant for direct 742 consumption in small quantities as a supplement need not be 743 labeled as a food product. 744 (5) Before sale to a registered patient or caregiver, a 745 retail licensee must affix an additional label to each product 746 that includes the licensee's name and license number. 747 (6) By January 1, 2016, the department must establish 748 standards for quality and testing procedures and for maximum 749 levels of unsafe contaminants. The department must also create a 750 list of individual cannabinoids that must be tested for, 751 concentrations that are considered significant for those 752 cannabinoids, and varying ranges of concentrations for each 753 cannabinoid upon which a physician may base his or her order for 754 a patient's use of a specific strain of medical -grade marijuana. Page 29 of 30 CODING: Words stHsken are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 F L O R I D A H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S HB 683 2015 755 Section 9. Section 381.998, Florida Statutes, is created 756 to read: 757 381.998 Penalties. - 758 (1) A physician commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, 759 punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, if he or she 760 orders medical -grade marijuana for a patient without a 761 reasonable belief that the patient is suffering from a condition 762 listed in s. 381.991(15). 763 (2) A person who fraudulently represents that he or she 764 has a medical condition listed in s. 381.991(15) for the purpose 765 of being ordered medical -grade marijuana by such physician 766 commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as 767 provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 768 Section 10. Section 381.999, Florida Statutes, is created 769 to read: 770 381.999 Insurance. -The Florida Medical Marijuana Act does 771 not require a governmental, private, or other health insurance 772 provider or health care services plan to cover a claim for 773 reimbursement for the purchase of medical -grade marijuana nor 774 does it restrict such coverage. 775 Section 11. Section 381.9991, Florida Statutes, is created 776 to read: 777 381.9991 Rulemaking. -The department may adopt rules 778 related to health, safety, and welfare as necessary to implement 779 this act. 780 Section 12. This act shall take effect July 1, 2015. Page 30 of 30 CODING: Words s#iGkea are deletions; words underlined are additions. hb0683-00 OF FLC Resolutions Committee The League's Resolutions Committee will be meeting in conjunction with the FLC Annual Conference, August 13-15, 2015. The Resolutions Committee meets each year to adopt FLC resolutions related to federal, constitutional or commemorative issues that are of statewide concern. Any municipality interested in submitting resolutions for consideration must submit them to the League no later than Wednesday, July 8, 2015, to guarantee that they will be included in the packet of proposed resolutions to the Resolutions Committee. Should you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Allison Payne at apailne@flcities.com or 850-701-3602. Procedures for Submitting Resolutions Florida League of Cities' 80 Annual Conference World Center Marriott, Orlando, Florida August 13 —15, 2015 In order to fairly systematize the method for presenting resolutions to the League membership, the following procedures have been instituted: (1) Proposed resolutions must be submitted in writing, to be received in the League office by July 8, 2015, to guarantee that they will be included in the packet of proposed resolutions that will be submitted to the Resolutions Committee. (2) Proposed resolutions will be rewritten for proper form, duplicated by the League office and distributed to members of the Resolutions Committee. (Whenever possible, multiple resolutions on a similar issue will be rewritten to encompass the essential subject matter in a single resolution with a listing of original proposers.) (3) Proposed resolutions may be submitted directly to the Resolutions Committee at the conference; however, a favorable two-thirds vote of the committee will be necessary to consider such resolutions. (4) Proposed resolutions may be submitted directly to the business session of the conference without prior committee approval by a vote of two-thirds of the members present. In addition, a favorable weighted vote of a majority of members present will be required for adoption. (5) Proposed resolutions relating to state legislation will be referred to the appropriate standing policy committee. Such proposals will not be considered by the Resolutions Committee at the conference; however, all state legislative issues will be considered by the standing policy committees and the Legislative Committee, prior to the membership. At that time, a state Legislative Action Agenda will be adopted. (6) Proposed resolutions must address either federal issues, state constitutional issues, matters directly relating to the conference, matters recognizing statewide or national events or service by League officers. All other proposed resolutions will be referred for adoption to either the Florida League of Cities Board of Directors or FLC President. Municipalities unable to formally adopt a resolution before the deadline may submit a letter to the League office indicating their city is considering the adoption of a resolution, outlining the subject thereof in as much detail as possible, and this letter will be forwarded to the Resolutions Committee for consideration in anticipation of receipt of the formal resolution. June 5, 2015 IN THIS ISSUE EPA Releases Final "Waters of the U.S." Rule Preemption of Local Authority on Internet Taxation Legislation Headed to House Floor Next Week The E -Fairness Hearing That Never Was Supreme Court Rules Motive and Knowledge Not the Same in Religious Accommodation Case New Report on Sharing Economy Finds City Leaders Support Ridesharing, Are Concerned about Safety Free Webinar: State and Local Legal Center Supreme Court Review July 15: Supreme Court Employment Cases Webinar EPA Releases Final "Waters of the U.S." Rule Carolyn Bemdt, 202.626.3101 Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released the final "waters of the U.S." rule to clarify which waters fall under federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The rule will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Under the final rule, "waters of the United States" means: 1. All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in intestate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (commonly referred to as 'traditional navigable waters") 2. All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; 3. The territorial seas; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States; 5. All 'tributaries" of waters identifed in 1-3 above; 6. All waters "adjacent" to a water identified in 1-5 above, including wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters; 7. Waters including Prairie potholes, Caroline bays and Delmarva bays, Pocosins, Western vernal pools, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands where it is determined, on a case -specific basis, to have a "significant nexus" to a water identified in 1-3 above; 8. All waters located within the 100 -year floodplain of a water identified in 1-3 above and all waters located within 4000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in 1-5 above where they are determined on a case -specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water in 1-3 above. The final rule includes definitions of "tributary," "adjacent," and "significant nexus," among others. This new definition of "waters of the U.S." has the potential to expand the number of waterbodies that are federally regulated under the CWA. Among the most significant changes from the proposed rule is an exclusion for "stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater that are created in dry land." The possibility that water conveyances, including but not limited to MS4s could meet the definition of a "tributary" under the proposed rule and thus be jurisdictional as a "waters of the U.S." was one of NLC's top concerns with the proposed rule. While the language establishes a broad categorical exclusion, it does not apply to stormwater control features that were built on wet land or if the features are part of a traditionally navigable water, interstate waters or the territorial seas. For example, the exclusion may not apply to infrastructure in coastal or low-lying areas. Additionally, some features, such as channelized or piped streams, would be jurisdictional. While the final rule does not include a specific exclusion for green infrastructure as NLC had requested, the preamble states, "this rule is designed to avoid disincentives to [the] environmentally beneficial trend in stormwater management practices" -using green infrastructure to manage stormwater at its source and keep it out of the conveyance system. The exclusion for stormwater control features "is intended to address engineered stormwater control structures in municipal and urban environments -those that address runoff that occurs during and shortly after precipitation events; as a result stormwater features that convey runoff are expected to only carry ephemeral or intermittent flow." The final rule also includes an exclusion for wastewater management systems, as NLC requested. The exclusion covers "wastewater recycling structures constructed in dry land; detention and retention basins built for wastewater recycling; groundwater recharge basins; percolation ponds built for wastewater recycling; and water distributary structures built for wastewater recycling." As with MS4s, the concern with the proposed rule was that water deliver and reuse facilities could be considered a "tributary" and therefore jurisdictional. It is important to note that even if stormwater and wastewater infrastructure are not considered a "waters of the U.S.," they may still be regulated as a point source under the CWA Section 402 permit program. NLC continues to review and analyze the final rule. This chart details a preliminary analysis covering NLC's specific concerns with the proposed rule. EPA will host a webinar on Thursday, June 11 from 1-2:30 p.m. EDT providing a broad overview of the final rule. You must register in advance to attend this webinar. Preemption of Local Authority on Internet Taxation Legislation Headed to House Floor Next Week Julia Pulidindi, 202.626.3176 Next week, the full House is expected to consider H.R. 235, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). As it has for years, NLC continues to vigorously oppose this legislation because it would preempt local authority to tax Internet access. Currently, a temporary ban blocks local governments from doing this except for in a handful of states. The temporary ban is set to expire on October 1, 2015, and this legislation would make the ban permanent for all states. In general, taxation of Internet access refers to applying state and local taxes to the monthly charge that subscribers pay for access to the Internet through an Internet Service Provider. The original intent of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 1998 was to encourage development of the Internet, which at the time was a new technology. This justification is no longer applicable given the substantial advancements in technology that have occurred since. A permanent tax moratorium on Internet access will result in increasing amounts of lost revenue on which state and local governments rely to fund essential services in their communities, like firefighters and police officers, schools, parks, libraries and continued investments to address aging infrastructure. NLC urges you to contact your Representative and ask that they vote against H.R. 235, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. The E -Fairness Hearing That Never Was Priya Ghosh Ahola, 202.626.3015 The House Judiciary Committee's Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law Subcommittee held a hearing this week on three tax bills: the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act (BATSA, scheduled for introduction on Monday June 8 by Rep. Chabot), the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act (H.R. 2315), and the Digital Goods and Services Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 1643). The common thread throughout the discussion was the issue of nexus or what should be considered a "sufficient physical presence" standard in these tax bills. This same question of how much nexus is sufficient is also a central issue to resolving the remote online sales tax collection issue. The question of sufficient nexus is important since it is a threshold inquiry for purposes of establishing, among other issues, whether a state can compel out of state online retailers to collect sales or use taxes from in-state purchasers. Despite the obvious connection between the main topic at the hearing and e -fairness or Marketplace Fairness, it was conspicuously missing from the hearing. This omission did not deter supporters of e -fairness, both from the panel of tax experts and supporters on the Subcommittee itself, from using the opportunity to advocate for resolution of the issue or passage of the legislation. NLC also took advantage of the opportunity to raise its concerns with the bills on the agenda and to chastise the committee for the missed opportunity to give e -fairness a hearing. Supreme Court Rules Motive and Knowledge Not the Same in Religious Accommodation Case Carolyn Coleman, 202.626.3023 In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores the Supreme Court held 8-1 that to bring a religious accommodation claim an applicant or employee need only show that his or her need for a religious accommodation was a motivating factor in an employment decision. NLC joined in an amicus brief filed by the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) arguing that to bring a failure to accommodate claim the applicantlemployee should have to notify the employer of the need for a religious accommodation. Abercrombie & Fitch refused to hire Samantha Elauf because she wore a headscarf to her interview. Abercrombie suspected she wore it for religious reasons but she did not ask for an accommodation. The EEOC sued Abercrombie alleging it violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Elaufs religious beliefs. The Court concluded that to bring a religious accommodation claim an applicantlemployee need not show that the employer had "actual knowledge" of the need for an accommodation. Instead the employee/applicant only must show that his or her need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision. Title VII prohibits employers from taking an adverse employment action "because of religion. While "because of usually means but - for causation, Title VII has a more relaxed standard that prohibits even making religion a motiving factor in an employment decision. Simply put, the Court would not add an "actual knowledge" requirement to Title VII. According to the Court, while a knowledge requirement could not be added to the motive requirement, arguably the motive requirement cannot be met unless the employer at least suspects the practice in question is religious. Here Abercrombie at least suspected Elauf wore a head scarf for religious reasons so the Court did not decide whether the motive requirement could be met without knowledge. Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, stated that the Court should have decided this question—in the negative. collaborate with NLC-RISC and keep you posted as we learn more throughout the process. New Report on Sharing Economy Finds City Leaders Support Ridesharing, Are Concerned about Safety NLC Staff The growing sharing economy is impacting cities as innovative companies are providing improvements to service efficiency and on -demand information. NLC this week released the first national quantitative survey of local elected officials' views on the sharing economy. The report, City Survey on the Sharing Economy: Shifting Perceptions of Collaborative Consumption, found that 71 percent of cities surveyed are supportive of growth in the sharing economy - particularly with ridesharing services such as Uber and Lyft - but many are concerned about the sharing economy's impact on public safety. On the whole, cities want to encourage economic development and accommodate the services their constituents want. The report was released in conjunction with an animated video: "Cities, The Sharing Economy, and What's Next." "Cities make the sharing economy work," said National League of Cities President Ralph Becker, mayor, Salt Lake City. "It's clear that city leaders understand that their communities demand the innovative services provided by the sharing economy." The survey found that city leaders are open to integrating sharing economy services more fully within their communities - and they want to capitalize on this opportunity. At the same time, the survey found that cities do have concerns with the sharing economy. Many cities are working through these challenges because they want to reflect resident demands and benefit from the sharing economy's economic impact. The majority of respondents acknowledged the importance of developing new policies on the sharing economy, and placed ridesharing front and center as the top priority in the policy arena. City Survey on the Sharing Economy: Shifting Perceptions of Collaborative Consumption builds on NLC's work to help city leaders understand and benefit from the sharing economy. • Cities, the Sharing Economy, and What's Next features interviews with city officials on the impact of the sharing economy and related topics centered around five key themes: innovation, economic development, equity, safety and implementation. • The Sharing Economy: An Analysis of Current Sentiment Surrounding Homesharing and Ridesharing presents a typology for measuring the sentiment of cities toward homesharing and ridesharing services. Free Webinar: State and Local Legal Center Supreme Court Review Carolyn Coleman, 202.626.3023 For state and local government, this Supreme Court term runs the gamut from same-sex marriage to the Affordable Care Act, from Medicaid to the Fair Housing Act, from the First Amendment to the Eighth Amendment. Discuss the significant cases affecting state and local government with John Bursch, Warner Norcross & Judd, Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Co-chair, who argued the same-sex marriage case on behalf of Michigan, Joe Palmore, Morrison & Foerster, Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Co-chair, and Tony Mauro, Supreme Court Correspondent, The National Law Journal/ Legal Times/ ALM. The State and Local Legal Center will offer separate webinars covering the Supreme Court's police cases, tax cases, employment cases, and its sign case, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona. SLLC Supreme Court Review Webinar Wednesday, July 22nd, 1:OOPM - 2:30PM EDT Register Now July 15: Supreme Court Employment Cases Webinar Carolyn Coleman, 202.626.3023 The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) will host a webinar on Wednesday, July 15 at 1:OOPM EDT on recent employment cases decided by the Supreme Court. While the Supreme Court decided no public employment cases this term, all four of the employment cases decided affect all employers -including state and local governments. Shay Dvoretzky, Jones Day, who argued EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch (religious accommodation), will discuss how that case and Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk (FLSA), Young v. UPS (PDA), and Mach Mining v. EEOC (EEOC conciliation) impacts state and local government employers. The potential impact on state and local governments of M&G Polymers v. Tackett (retiree health benefits) and Tibble v. Edison (fiduciary duty retirement benefits) also will be covered. SLLC Employment Cases Webinar Wednesday, July 15th, 1:OOPM - 2:30PM EDT Register Now Waters of the United States: Implications for Florida's Local Governments HOW WILL THE RULE AFFECT FLORIDA�S CITIES? The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in conjunction with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on Wednesday, May 271 released the final agency rule revising the definition of "Waters of the United States" otherwise known as "WOTUS." The rule attempts to clarify which waters are considered jurisdictional for purposes of Clean Water Act protection and Army Corps of Engineer permitting authority and regulation. The programs most affected by the new rule that are applicable to local governments under the Clean Water Act are the Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the Section 404 permit program for discharge of dredged or fill material. Local governments depend on certainty in knowing which waters are considered jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act. The new rule creates uncertainty in its attempt to provide clarity for the administration of local government clean water programs that will have potential impacts on: building and maintaining infrastructure, road construction, ditches, water treatment facilities, and stormwater systems. INITIAL CONCERNS RAISED BY THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES • The proposed rule significantly expanded federal jurisdiction over waters deemed jurisdictional • Economic projections estimated by EPA severely underestimated compliance costs • The proposed rule included within the rule new definitions that, by and of themselves, would expand the scope of federal jurisdiction and lacked clarity. For example, waters that have a "significant nexus" to a traditional WOTUS or that are "adjacent" to a traditional WOTUS will become a WOTUS • Lack of ample time for public comment on the rule • New CWA jurisdiction over stormwater treatment areas and ditches THE FINAL RULE The final rule varied from the proposed rule. Unfortunately, the agencies did not allow for additional public comment even though the changes were substantial. Found in the rule are 8 categories of waters that are regulated: (1) traditional navigable waters; (2) interstate waters; (3) territorial seas; (4) impoundments; (5) tributaries; (6)adjacent waters; (7) enumerated regional features with a significant nexus; and (8) waters in the 100 -year floodplain or waters within 4,000 feet of a water of the U.S. with a significant nexus. The final rule failed to provide the clarity the League of Cities was seeking when determining what waters are jurisdictional. Several issues remain with the final rule as written: 1. Ditches - While the rule does exempt certain ditches from classification as a water of the U.S., there are many ditches that will not meet the exclusions provided in the rule. The rule will exempt ditches with intermittent flow, however, ditches that have a perennial flow (perennial flow is defined as water flowing "throughout the year") would now be regulated as jurisdictional tributaries. In some areas of Florida, roadside ditches, due to geography, would have a perennial flow and would now be considered jurisdictional. 2. Adjacent Waters- Unclear and perplexing definitions remain. The final rule modifies the definition of adjacent waters. The standard of adjacent waters found in the final rule will lead to many bodies of water being classified as waters of the U.S. because of their proximity to current jurisdictional waters. The American Farm Bureau gives the example that if a body of water (stream, pond, lake, and river) is adjacent to a jurisdictional water and any part of that water is bordering, contiguous, or neighboring a jurisdictional water, then the entire adjacent water is now jurisdictional. The example given suggests that if a portion of a water is located within 1500 feet of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and within the 100 -year floodplain, the entire water is jurisdictional. 3. Economic Cost —The final rule did nothing to relieve the fears of the Florida League of Cities when it comes to the cost of complying with the rule. Although the EPA has continually stated that the rule does not expand jurisdiction, it is hard to comprehend the notion the newly regulated waters will not lead to increased costs to local governments and its citizens. 4. Stormwater Treatment Areas — In its final rule EPA did allow for an exclusion for stormwater control features constructed to convey, treat, or store stormwater. That exclusion, however, comes with the caveat that the stormwater control feature must have been created in "dry land." There is no definition of dry land found in the rule. This standard will create many obstacles for local governments and utilities to prove stormwater treatment areas were built on dry land. It will require historical research to not only determine the year the facility or structure was built, but also research into floodplain maps to ensure the area meets the dry land exclusion. 5. Substantive Changes Made without Opportunity to Comment—After much public outcry EPA was forced to extend public comment on the original proposed rule on two different occasions. Similarly, because of the substantive changes from the proposed rule to the final product, EPA should have reopened public comment and allowed stakeholders to share concerns with the final rule. The final rule will become effective 60 days after the date of its publication in the Federal Register. It is likely the rule will be challenged in federal court. There are several pieces of legislation filed at the federal level to block implementation of the WOTUS rule. The U.S. House of Representatives has passed H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act, which requires EPA to withdraw the rule. The U.S. Senate has similarly introduced a bipartisan piece of legislation, S. 1140, which directs EPA and ACOE to withdraw the existing WOTUS proposal and issue a revised rule. Florida League of Cities ALERT FAST Federal Action Strike Team Alert from the National League of Cities Preemption of Local Authority on Internet Taxation Legislation Headed to House Floor This week, the full U.S. House is expected to consider H.R. 235, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA). As it has for years, NLC continues to vigorously oppose this legislation because it would preempt local authority to tax Internet access. Currently, a temporary ban blocks local governments from doing this except for in a handful of states. The temporary ban is set to expire on October 1, 2015, and this legislation would make the ban permanent for all states. In general, taxation of Internet access refers to applying state and local taxes to the monthly charge that subscribers pay for access to the Internet through an Internet Service Provider. The original intent of the Internet Tax Freedom Act in 1998 was to encourage development of the Internet, which at the time was a new technology. This justification is no longer applicable given the substantial advancements in technology that have occurred since. A permanent tax moratorium on Internet access will result in increasing amounts of lost revenue on which state and local governments rely to fund essential services in their communities, like firefighters and police officers, schools, parks, libraries and continued investments to address aging infrastructure. NLC urges you to contact your Representative and ask that they vote against H.R. 235, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. Impact for Florida Florida law prohibits any tax on Internet access. The Florida League of Cities Opposes H.R. 235 because it makes the moratorium permanent. FLC supports a temporary extension of the moratorium for the following reasons: over the next several years, most of the services known as telecommunications and cable services will transition to broadband; as a result, the scope of the services that Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) shields from state and local taxation will greatly expand; a temporary extension of the moratorium would allow more time to fully assess the transition from telecommunications and cable services to ITFA-protected broadband services; and a temporary extension of the moratorium would also allow more time to determine the impact on the relative tax obligations of industry sectors to which ITFA does not apply and provide Congress the opportunity to revisit the moratorium to correct any unintended consequences. Please contact your U. S. Representatives and urge them to Oppose a Permanent Extension of the Internet Tax Freedom Act. Click Here for contact information for your Representative(s). Attached is the FLC resolution that was adopted last year to federal legislation from 2014. Also attached is a joint letter from NLC and several National Local Government Organizations in Opposition to H.R. 235. Please let me know what response you receive from your Members of Congress. Allison Payne Manager, Advocacy & Federal Affairs 2014-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC., URGING CONGRESS TO OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PREEMPT STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER THE COLLECTION OF CERTAIN TAXES AND FEES RELATED TO INTERNET ACCESS. WHEREAS, in October 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA), imposing a three-year moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and Intemet access; and WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended three times, in 2001, 2004 and 2007, and is now set to expire on November 1, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Internet access moratorium was originally conceived at a time when the Internet was experiencing tremendous growth and Congress believed that in order to foster this growth it was necessary to halt any taxes that might constrain the Internet and WHEREAS, now the Internet is universal with more and more services moving from a telecommunications/cable delivery system to broadband, and it no longer needs special tax protection; and WHEREAS, H.R. 3086 by U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R -VA) would permanently extend the moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and Internet access; and WHEREAS, Florida law also prohibits any tax on Internet access; and WHEREAS, over the next several years, most of the services known as telecommunications and cable services will transition to broadband; and WHEREAS, as a result, the scope of the services that ITFA shields from state and local taxation will greatly expand; and WHEREAS, a temporary extension of the moratorium would allow more time to fully assess the transition from telecommunications and cable services to ITFA-protected broadband services; and WHEREAS, a temporary extension of the moratorium would also allow more time to determine the impact on the relative tax obligations of industry sectors to which ITFA does not apply and provide Congress the opportunity to revisit the moratorium to correct any unintended consequences. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC.: Section 1. That the Florida League of Cities, Inc., urges Congress to oppose a permanent extension of the moratorium on multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet access and instead support a temporary extension of the current moratorium. Section 2. That a copy of this resolution be provided to President Barack Obama, the Florida Congressional Delegation, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Government Finance Officers Association, Florida Governor Rick Scott and the membership of the Florida League of Cities, Inc. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Florida League of Cities, Inc., in conference assembled at the League's 88`s Annual Conference, at the Westin Diplomat, Hollywood, Florida, this 16th Day of August 2014. ATTEST: P.C. Wu, President Florida League of Cities, Inc. Councilman, Pensacola Michael Sittig, Executive Director Florida League of Cities, Inc. Submitted by: FLC Staff National Association of Counties National League of Cities U.S. Conference of Mayors International City/County Management Association Government Finance Officers Association National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors June 8, 2015 Dear Representative , On behalf of local governments across the nation, our organizations write to express our continuing opposition to H.R. 235, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act. We urge you to oppose the legislation when it is considered on the House floor. When the Internet Tax Freedom Act was fust enacted in 1998, the Internet access and commerce industries were in their infancy and only beginning to be significantly available to households. The intent of the moratorium was to give the then -nascent Internet industry time to grow and become established. However, even at that time, Congress recognized that the ban should not be permanent. In addition, estimates of previous versions of this bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office indicate that, if enacted, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act would cost state and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. These are revenues that local governments rely upon to fund essential services in their communities, including well-trained firefighters and police officers; investments to fix aging infrastructure; schools, parks, community centers and libraries to support youth. It is truly alarming to note the large number of co-sponsors from states where our members, state and local government officials and public servants, have resoundingly detailed the crucial nature of these revenues to their cities, counties and states and the impact of the potential loss of these revenues. Finally, as the telecommunications and cable service industries increasingly transition to broadband, it is important that state and local governments are not preempted from their ability to govern their own tax structures. Over time, the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act would arbitrarily exempt this fast growing sector of the economy from taxation, and unfairly shift the burden of supporting essential local services onto other businesses and residents in a community. For all of these reasons, we urge you to vote against the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, HK 235. Sincerely, Matthew D. Chase Executive Director, National Association of Counties Clarence E. Anthony Executive Director, National League of Cities Tom Cochran Executive Director, U.S. Conference of Mayors Robert J. O Neill Executive Director, International City/County Management Association Jeffrey L. Esser Executive Director, Government Finance Officers Association Stephen Traylor, Executive Director, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors 2015-16 Legislative Key Contact Information An essential part of the Florida League of Cities' advocacy strategy is the legislative key contact program. City officials with a strong relationship with a particular legislator(s) are asked to sign up as a legislative key contact. Key contacts are responsible for keeping in constant communication with their legislator to keep him/her updated on key municipal issues being considered by the Legislature; responding to urgent calls to action and other legislative alerts during the legislative session; and strengthening the relationship with legislators and their staff. Please complete with your preferred day -time contact information to receive timely legislative information. Name: City/TownNillage: Title: Phone # (cell): (where you can be reached during the day) E-mail: Do you wish to receive text alerts? Legislative Contact Information Senator/ Representative: Type of Relationship: Check the box that you believe most accurately describes the type of relationship you have with this Member. ❑ Political ❑ Business ❑ Personal ❑ Other Strength of the Relationship: Check the box that most accurately reflects the strength of your relationship. ❑ Close ❑ Acquaintance ❑ Distant Senator/ Representative: Type of Relationship: Check the box that you believe most accurately describes the type of relationship you have with this Member. ❑ Political ❑ Business ❑ Personal ❑ Other Strength of the Relationship: Check the box that most accurately reflects the strength of your relationship. ❑ Close ❑ Acquaintance ❑ Distant Please send to Allison Payne at the Florida League of Cities via fax 850-222-3806 or e-mail: apayne63ficities.com Post -Session Advocacy Strategies Building/Strengthening Relationships 1. Send legislators AND their staff a handwritten note thanking them for their service during the 2015 session. 2. If you meet regularly with HOA's or civic or business groups invite your legislator(s) to join you. 3. Personally invite them to any and all major events happening in your city and be sure you're in attendance. 4. Invite them to speak at an upcoming council meeting to share their perspective and accomplishments during the 2015 regular and special sessions. 5. If your regional league meets during the summer, invite legislators to participate on a panel to talk about legislation that passed/failed during the sessions specifically related to local government. 6. Invite legislators and their staff to EVERY regional league meeting. 7. Schedule a minimum of two one-on-one meetings during the summer and invite your city manager to accompany you. These are excellent opportunities to: a. Present a copy of your annual budget and provide a historical review of increases/decreases in revenues and expenditures, specifically as they relate to the impact of any state legislation. b. Start a conversation about any state appropriation requests for your city. c. Help your city manager build/strengthen the relationship with legislators. 6. If they're planning to have a town hall meeting, offer to host it in your council chambers. Help them promote the meeting and be sure to attend! 9. Look for opportunities to work together as partners between state and local government. Education and Information 1. Invite legislators to tour (or review a conceptual proposal) of ANY project or program that could be negatively impacted by mandating the cost of utility relocation onto local governments. 2. Provide them with a copy of any Interlocal agreement, contracts with utility companies, or examples of when utility companies have agreed to pay the cost of relocation... especially for non -transportation related projects. 3. Monitor and share with legislators the results of any new or recent legislation that has impacted (positive or negative) your city, i.e. Pension Reform, Sober Homes, etc. 4. Invite them to attend any and all council meetings in which you will be discussing your annual budget. 5. Provide them with a copy of your annual budget or budget summary, highlighting line items that may be affected by proposed legislation or are vital to your community. 6. Share what you are doing to attract and retain businesses in your town. 7. Personally invite legislators and their staff to ribbon cuttings for new and expanding businesses in your city. Effective Communication — Advice from a Legislative Aide 1. No matter the time of year, if you're planning to discuss specific legislation always know the bill number, status, and sponsor. 2. Provide a very brief summary of what the legislation does/doesn't do. 3. Tell your story and the local impact of the legislation. Be as specific as possible. 4. If you are asking your legislator to support a project or program in your city and there is a fiscal impact to taxpayers, provide a brief explanation of how you are planning to pay for it. 5. NEVER dismiss the legislators' questions or concerns as trivial. They are asking or expressing them for a reason. 6. NEVER speak ill of another member in front of your legislator. Even though they may disagree politically and philosophically, they may also be very good friends. 7. When talking with legislators about specific legislation or issues, make every effort to talk about an issue they can support, not just oppose. Legislators develop close friendships with their colleagues, and they appreciate being able to support them whenever possible. 8. If you want to communicate about an issue that's controversial, be prepared to tell your legislator why it is so. Also, be prepared to share: a. If you've spoken to other legislators about this issue and what, if any concerns they have. b. What are the concerns from the public on the issue? Communicating the Fiscal Impact—Advice from a Legislative Aide "Many state legislators have not served in local government and thus may not be familiar with local government revenues and expenditures. When sharing the fiscal impact of legislation, you need to communicate in terms they can relate to." (Aide, 2015). Example: The fiscal impact to your city as a result of HB 1309 — Mortality Tables is $1,000,000 per year. For a legislator that may not seem like a large amount when they're addressing a state budget of $70+ billion each year. However, if you also translate that into a percentage of your annual budget, and share what that dollar amount and percentage would equate to at the state level... then you've got their attention. 2. Also, if you say, "The result of this legislation is that we may have to raise taxes," one of their first reactions is to question why. They often wonder if this is your first or your only option. It's very, very important to explain this in greater detail, especially if you've explored all other options to exercise fiscal restraint before considering a tax increase. For more timely and proven advocacy strategies, be sure to visit the League's web site often at: www.ficities.com/advocacy . Subject: Priority Issue -Abandoned Shopping Carts Good Morning, I am forwarding this information from my Village of Palm Springs email, but this is also an issue within the Town of Lake Park (and from my personal observations, other cities throughout the State). As I was describing via telephone yesterday, abandoned shopping carts along municipal rights-of-way and vacant lots is an ongoing nuisance. Our Village maintenance and code enforcement personnel spend a lot of time picking up abandoned carts (see attached photo from Clean-up Day). Most times, there is a means to identify the business owner; but when we call the store to let them know that we have their carts that they can pick up, they tell us to just dispose of them because they write them off as a business loss. This results in an abundance of carts temporarily stored at our maintenance yard, and municipal costs to dispose of them (see attached photo of North Lauderdale Public Works yard). While anyone found walking down the street with a store's shopping cart can be charged with possessing stolen property and a V degree misdemeanor under Chp 506.509, F.S., our Police Chief explains that this isn't a significant issue for which a patrol officer will stop and take action. Chapter 506.5131, F.S. was amended in 2002 to preempt local governments from adopting shopping cart loss prevention and retrieval requirements with any enforcement mechanism. We would like businesses to take more proactive action to keep the carts on the store property and to collect wayward carts from surrounding neighborhoods, or if the Village picks them up, to pay a fee to offset the impact on municipal resources. The Florida Retail Federation objected to an ordinance the Village was considering (I've attached their email), and we ended up watering down our ordinance. While we require all new stores to provide a shopping cart loss prevention and retrieval plan, we have no mechanism to enforce it. Abandoned carts area nuisance that affects the character of our neighborhoods, streets, and parks. Legislation needs to be amended to allow cities to do more to require businesses to take means to keep shopping carts on their property so that they do not become discarded trash, and/or to routinely survey the surrounding area and collect abandoned carts. I would like to discuss this issue with the Urban Administration Committee on Friday. Thanks, Kim Kim Glas-Castro, AICP LEED AP Land Development Director Village of Palm Springs 226 Cypress Lane Palm Springs, FL 33461 Phone: 561-965-4016 Fax: 561-439-4132 kelas-castro (n)ypsfl.orR It.aLi�larlkna�r `�' MALA.coM n m .b po pae mcmwoa uemh 1La amaNerpmmwm,ee0y mr++br tlk4WYm bPembAw,r3•�• rcculmrf Mnvw Ne RepiYs'tmINY appna Mow em ema once norm arum.r bmw Ocala mayor vetoes strengthened shopping cart law aye"_ nam WM publ&hed: TL day, January 13,=5 at 6:58pm Ocala Mayor Kent Guinn has vetoed a shopping cart ordinance after the City Council voted to strengthen the law. It appears unlikely there will be political will to override the veto. "The people that are having their shopping carts stolen from them am victims of a crime," Guinn said Tuesday. "For us to go after them with a code violation doesn't make sense." Guinn also said the cost is prohibitive for businesses who wish to be exempt from the ordinance. The council can override the mayors veto by a 4/5 vote, but it looks unlikely that will happen. The City Council voted 3-2 on Jan. 6 to pass an ordinance to require Shop owners to do more to safeguard shopping carts and keep them from littering public property or private property belonging to others. Councilmen Brent Malever and John Mcl.eed were the dissenting votes. The three who voted for the ordinance said Tuesday they likely will not try to overturn the mayor's veto. "Right now I don't have any plans to bring it up; Council President Jay Musch said. "Right now, my inclination is to let the veto stand." Musleh said the ordinance "sounded like a good idea at the time." He said he voted for it and thought it was non -controversial. "Obviously, other people felt different," he said. Even so, Musleh thinks having carts left on public property or the private property of others is a problem. "You would think with the Lost of shopping carts, the centers that have these shopping carts would he more inclined to keep them on their property; he said. Councilwoman Mary Rich, who also voted for the ordinance, said that upon reflection she would not vote to Overturn the veto. "I'm OK with him vetoing it; Rich said about the mayor.'Thaes one of the times I voted for something that I really don't think I should have. I don't think we should hold store owners responsible for people taking their carts oft. And what are you going to do with the people with the carts? Put them in jail? Most of the time they put them somewhere and park them and leave them, and you don't know who pushed them out of the store." Councilman Jim Hilly, too, is rethinking his vote for the ordinance. He said he "probably' would not challenge the veto and bring it back to the council I oft 2/1212015 10:06 AM nup:awww.ucata.cottuarucle/tu t Ju I u/AIU ICLCJ/ I Sol 198787temp;.. to reconsider. He said council members are getting emails in opposition of the ordinance. "I know there's a problem, but it's probably not a dramatic problem," HBty said. 'Let's let the grocery stores that are losing them try to work on it." McLeod and Malever, who voted against the ordinance, said they would not change their opinion. "I don't think it's any of our business to get involved in private enterprise," Malever said. "I think they have to worry about their own grocery carts and not the city. I can't see where its needed myself." Malever said he was "sure" he would not change his vote. It looks unlikely McLeod will either. "Unless someone can really point out the need for us to have a shopping cart ordinance, I just don't see the need for it," McLeod said. "In my opinion, I think it goes a little too far." The original ordinance, enacted in 2008, requires that if a cart is found on public property the city will notify the owner and require the cart to be retrieved within 30 days or the city may dispose of it. The same rule applies if the cart has no identification but the city is able to identify the owner. The revised ordinance requires shop owners to have the establishment's name, address and phone number on the shopping carts. Or, the establishment could obtain an exemption if it installed various mechanisms to retain the carts on its property or parking lot Under the revised ordinance, the city requires sales establishments with shopping carts to install signs in parking lots or at entrances to shops stating that any person who removes a shopping cart with a name or mark on it without the permission of the owner will be considered a misdemeanor off®der under city code and be subject to a maximum fine of $Soo and/or up to 60 days in jail. The penalty likely would be less for a fast offense. Mother change requires that after the tenth notice to the same business regarding a misplaced cart, the citywould send a notice requiring that the business not only must have its name, address and phone number on the cart, or file for an exemption at a cost of $50, but also must establish management procedures for collecting the shopping carts on its property. The cart owner would have 90 days from receipt of the certified notice to comply or be subject to a Code Enforcement violation. The city Code Enforcement Board or special magistrate would have jurisdiction over violations. Contact Sean Latham Carr at 867-4156 or summearr@starbanner cam. Copyright @ 2015 Ocala.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only. 2 of 2 2/12/2015 10:06 AM Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion Number: AGO 2007-29 Date: July 10, 2007 Subject: Municipal regulation of shopping carts Mr. David Jove City Attorney City of Hallandale Beach 400 South Federal Highway Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009 RE: MUNICIPALITIES - ORDINANCES - CONFLICT - SHOPPING CARTS - local legislation relating to return of shopping carts. s. 506.5131, Fla. Stat. Dear Mr. Jove: As City Attorney for the City of Hallandale Beach, you have asked for my opinion on substantially the following question: Does section 506.5131, Florida Statutes, preempt local legislation requiring a business owner to submit a prevention and retrieval plan to the city for shopping carts and imposing a monetary penalty for failing to submit such a plan? Sections 506.501 - 506.519, Florida Statutes, are the "Carts, Cases, Baskets, Boxes, and Containers Act.11[1] Section 506.513, Florida Statutes, makes it illegal "[t]o remove any shopping cart . . . from the premises or parking area of a retail establishment with intent to deprive temporarily or permanently the owner of such cart, or the retailer, of possession of the cart." The section about which you have inquired, section 506.5131, Florida Statutes, provides that 11(1) The rightful owner of any shopping cart with a registered name or mark found on public property shall be immediately notified of its recovery. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or local ordinance, no fee, fine, or costs may be assessed against the owner of a shopping cart unless the shopping cart was found on public property and was removed from the premises or parking area of a retail establishment http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/3118CD2673ECE7F38525731500549464 8/8/2007 by the owner of the shopping cart, or an employee acting on the owner's behalf, and the fee, fine, or cost has been approved by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. This subsection shall not apply to any ordinance adopted after January 31, 2002, and prior to June 30, 2002, that requires a business establishment to install a retention system to retain shopping carts within the real property boundaries of a business location." Violations of these provisions are a misdemeanor of the first degree. [2] Thus, the statute prohibits a municipality from imposing any fees or costs on business owners for any reason other than those specifically set forth in the statute. In Florida, a municipality is given broad authority to enact ordinances under its municipal home rule powers[3] and may legislate concurrently with the Legislature on any subject which has not been expressly preempted to the State.[9] Preemption takes a topic or a field in which local government might otherwise establish appropriate local laws and reserves that topic for regulation exclusively by the state legislature.[5] Express preemption requires a specific statement; an express preemption cannot be made by implication or inference.[6] However, the Legislature may act to reserve a subject to the state for regulation without using the specific language of preemption and create a preemption by effect.[7] No express language of preemption is evident in section 506.5131, Florida Statutes. By its terms, section 506.5131, Florida Statutes, prohibits a local government from adopting any regulation imposing a fee, fine, or costs on the owner of a shopping cart unless the cart was 1) found on public property; and 2) removed from a retail establishment by the owner or an agent of the owner. Further, such a fee or fine may only be imposed after approval by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Legislative direction as to how a thing is to be done prohibits its being done in any other way.[8] Thus, the provisions of section 506.5131, Florida Statutes, control the assessment of fees, fines, and costs for the return of shopping carts. Local legislation concerned with the health, safety, and welfare of the public which does not conflict with the provisions of sections 506.513 and 506.5131, Florida Statutes, may be enacted, however. Thus, an ordinance requiring a plan for the recovery of stolen or abandoned shopping carts that does not impose fees, fines, or costs on the owner of those carts would be permissible under section 506.5131. Because the statute clearly contemplates the imposition of a fine or costs on the owner of a shopping cart only when the cart is found on public property and only under the circumstances described in section 506.5131, an ordinance may not impose a fine or costs under any other circumstances.[9] http:Hmyfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/3118CD2673ECE7F38525731500549464 8/8/2007 In sum, it is my opinion that section 506.5131, Florida Statutes, controls the assessment of fees, fines, and costs against the owners of stolen or abandoned shopping carts. However, while a local government may not adopt conflicting legislation, legislation treating other aspects of this subject matter may be enacted. Sincerely, Bill McCollum Attorney General BM/tgh --------------------------------------------------------------- [1] See s. 506.501, Fla. Stat., providing a short title. [2] Misdemeanors of the first degree are punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, Fla. Stat. [3] See Art. VIII, s. 2(b), Fla. Const., and ss. 166.021(1), (3)(c), (4), Fla. Stat. [4] Wyche v. State, 619 So. 2d 231, 237-238 (Fla. 1993) (citing City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corp., 404 So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)); see also, Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 252, 254 (Fla. 1989) (stating that the municipal home rule powers act "limits cities from legislating on any subject expressly preempted to state government by general law"). [5] Phantom of Clearwater, Inc. v. Pinellas County, 894 So. 2d 1011, 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). [6] Florida League of Cities, Inc., v. Department of Insurance & Treasurer, 540 So. 2d 850, 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (quoting Board of Trustees v. Dulje, 453 So. 2d 177, 178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)); see also Phantom of Clearwater, Inc., id. at 1018 ("Express preemption . . . must be accomplished by clear language stating that intent."); Edwards v. State, 422 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ("An 'express' reference is one which is distinctly stated and not left to inference."). [7] Barragan, supra n.4, citing Tribune Co. v. Cannella, 458 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 1984). [8] Alsop v. Pierce, 19 So. 2d 799, 805-806 (Fla. 1944); Dobbs v. Sea Isle Hotel, 56 So. 2d 341, 342 (Fla. 1952); Thayer v. State, 335 So. 2d 815, 817 (Fla. 1976). http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/3118CD2673ECE7F38525731500549464 8/8/2007 [9] See Inf. Op. to Berntason, Feb. 5, 2001, advising that the Department of Agriculture would consider a request from a municipality for imposition of a fine, fee, or cost under the circumstances described in s. 506.5131. http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/printview/3118CD2673EC.E7F38525731500549464 8/8/2007 ��: . ����. : 1 i