Location of Equipment Owned by Amusement Business Owner:
Summary
HB 505 would prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting or enforcing policies, ordinances, regulations, or similar measures that require an amusement business owner to pay a monetary exaction for placing, parking, or storing equipment on qualifying agricultural land for six months or longer. The restriction applies only to agricultural parcels of at least five acres that are fully fenced around the perimeter, and only when the equipment is stored at least 100 feet from the perimeter fencing.
The bill defines "agricultural lands" by reference to property appraiser classifications under section 193.461, Florida Statutes, and defines "amusement business owner" as a traveling circus- or carnival-related service provider, including operators of rides, food, beverages, and games, who serves fairs or supports nonprofit fundraising events. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB 505 would limit local government authority over land-use or fee-based regulation on certain agricultural properties by preempting counties and municipalities from imposing charges on qualifying amusement business equipment stored on those lands. In practice, it would protect traveling carnival and circus operators from local monetary exactions tied to long-term equipment placement on fenced agricultural parcels meeting the bill’s size and setback requirements, while leaving other local regulations outside that narrow prohibition unaffected.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no detailed public debate to assess. The bill’s progression ended when it died in the Commerce Committee, which suggests it did not secure enough support to advance, but the context provided does not indicate whether the lack of movement reflected substantive opposition, scheduling, or other procedural reasons.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s preemption of local authority: counties and municipalities may object to being barred from charging fees or exactions on agricultural land use they regulate locally. Another likely issue is the bill’s narrow but specific carveout for amusement business owners, which could raise questions about whether it favors a particular industry and whether the fencing, acreage, and 100-foot setback conditions are sufficiently clear or practical to administer.