SB 1116 would expand the permitted uses of Florida county tourist development tax revenues. Under current law, those revenues are generally limited to tourism-related facilities, promotion, and certain beach and public infrastructure uses. This bill adds three new authorized uses: funding public safety improvements, funding the development and construction of affordable housing, and funding the development and construction of workforce housing. The bill also allows related land acquisition, land improvement, design and engineering, and other professional services needed to carry out those projects.
The measure would amend section 125.0104, Florida Statutes, which governs the tourist development tax and the purposes for which counties may spend the proceeds. If enacted, counties imposing the tax could direct revenue toward projects intended to support tourism-related business activity through safety improvements, while also using the tax to help address housing shortages for low- and moderate-income workers and other eligible affordable housing needs. The bill is set to take effect July 1, 2025.
The bill would broaden county discretion over tourist development tax revenue by adding public safety, affordable housing, and workforce housing to the list of authorized expenditures in s. 125.0104, F.S. Counties that levy the tax could use these funds for land acquisition, engineering, and construction-related costs associated with those projects, potentially shifting some revenue away from traditional tourism promotion and venue-related uses. Because the bill amends the statute directly, it would change the legal framework governing how tourist tax proceeds may be allocated statewide.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of debate or floor sentiment. The bill’s text suggests a policy approach that tries to balance tourism funding with broader community needs, especially housing and public safety. Its final status indicates it died in the Senate Commerce and Tourism committee, which suggests it did not advance despite being introduced for consideration.
The likely points of contention are the expansion of tourist tax spending beyond traditional tourism purposes and whether housing and public safety projects are sufficiently connected to tourism to justify use of the revenue. Supporters would likely view the bill as a flexible local-government tool to address housing affordability and safety needs in tourism-heavy counties, while opponents may argue that tourist development tax revenues should remain focused on tourism promotion, visitor facilities, and related infrastructure. The bill’s committee death suggests there may have been concern about diverting a tourism-specific tax to broader social and infrastructure purposes.