It has come to my attention that some cities have been expressing concern in reference to SB 896/HB "Road391, utility relocation legislation of the 2015 session, and its potential impact on our local governments. The bill is likely to return again in 2016.
The Florida League of Cities, I believe, has been a little misleading in their effort to rouse the interests of many city leaders across the state. They have either misinformed or left out key arguments. Whatever their purpose, it is my intent to give the facts on the parts of the legislation that have created some consternation.
The bill, if passed, would do nothing to change current law in relation to projects connected to our roads. Utilities will continue to pay for their right-of-way relocation when a local government initiates a road-related project, to include sidewalks, drainage, expansion, and maintenance, to name a few examples.
"Road" is defined in 334.03(23) of the Florida Statutes as a way open to travel by the public, including, but not limited to, a street, highway, or alley. The term includes associated sidewalks, the roadbed, the right of way, and all culverts, drains, sluices, ditches, water storage areas, waterways, embankments, slopes, retaining walls, bridges, tunnels, and viaducts necessary for the maintenance of travel, and all ferries used in connection therewith. It seems clear to me that stormwater drainage projects and others, as I previously mentioned, would be included.
The bill also clarifies the current practice that local government or other third parties pay for the relocation of utility right-of-way infrastructure if the public project is not road-related. Many cities throughout the state of Florida already do this as standard practice. However, some use the ambiguity as a way of forcing utilities to pay for the relocation. The bill, simply put, ensures that the language is clear on this matter. Furthermore, third parties have used this loophole in some instances to avoid paying for relocation.
Additionally, SB 896/HB 391 re-establishes the reimbursement and fundamental property rights of utilities when a local government asks them to relocate infrastructure located in an easement. This has been the common practice until recently diminished by a lower court decision in direct response to a lawsuit from Lee County Electrical Cooperative.
I would be remiss if I did not draw attention to a point the Florida League of Cities does not mention in their opposition to the bill -- a detail that was mentioned during debates this past session. The Communications Services Tax (CST) is a tax charged to all residents on bills such as telephone (landline or cell), cable, and satellite service. A large portion of this tax is for the specific purpose of offsetting these types of costs to the municipalities. The tax that is collected can range from the hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the size of the city. Why should residents have to pay twice?
Since being elected to the office of state representative, I have prided myself on being a strong advocate for our district, as well as the state of Florida. One of the difficult tasks I have is constantly seeking the balance between ensuring the law is clear statewide, where applicable, to ease the burden of government regulations and preventing further cost shifting to our cities and counties. As a former local elected official, I do understand the concerns expressed by some. Ultimately, nothing changes with respect to how cities currently do business with the utility companies. On the contrary, it clarifies an ambiguous aspect of our statute.
Rep. David Santiago, R-Deltona, represents District 27 in Central Florida.
