Community Redevelopment Plans:
HB 363 would amend Florida’s community redevelopment law to let a community redevelopment agency use up to 20% of tax increment financing (TIF) funds for business support services when implementing an approved community redevelopment plan. The bill specifically lists eligible uses such as short-term rent assistance for small businesses, professional training and workshops, recruitment and retention efforts, direct loans, program development to attract new businesses, and emergency grants or assistance to small businesses during a declared emergency.
The measure would expand the range of activities that community redevelopment agencies may fund with TIF revenues, shifting some resources from traditional redevelopment uses toward direct business stabilization and growth support. It would take effect July 1, 2025, and would affect community redevelopment agencies, local governments, and small businesses operating in redevelopment areas.
HB 363 would amend section 163.360, Florida Statutes, by expressly authorizing community redevelopment agencies to dedicate up to 20% of tax increment financing funds to business support services. This would broaden the permissible uses of redevelopment dollars and provide statutory authority for agencies to fund short-term operational relief and business development activities, including emergency aid during disasters or other emergencies defined in state law.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history for HB 363, and the bill was withdrawn prior to introduction. As a result, there is no documented legislative sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears oriented toward supporting small businesses and local redevelopment efforts, but no formal support or opposition is reflected in the available record.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials because there were no committee transcripts or votes, and the bill was withdrawn before introduction. Potential areas of debate, if the bill had advanced, would likely have included whether diverting up to 20% of TIF funds to business support services is an appropriate use of redevelopment revenue, how broadly emergency assistance should be defined, and whether the cap could reduce funding for other redevelopment priorities.