[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,83],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6263852,"mediaKeyId","3100022-857d676093680d4039cdec794dd7fca7","parentId",3100022,"title","Votes at a glance: Key measures the Florida Senate took April 19","audioSeconds",1629,"startMs",15862000,"endMs",17491000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3100022-857d676093680d4039cdec794dd7fca7&start=15862&end=17491","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3100022-857d676093680d4039cdec794dd7fca7/thumbnail_15862000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6263852/Florida/Votes-at-a-glance-Key-measures-the-Florida-Senate-took-April-19","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263852-a41b45d5db2b8bad80bf9de672f865aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1770716111&Signature=bZn7i91BhF4GS0TiQDDZg5v4EjEF~c0yWy5gGlcIYbMxqXXJvygSqtCZ5zgmvNfjr~~OmwdAWubYB9ONl1Mv9XVwBqrifUC2dhLccbjWSrP3-Nvj~g1lH3ljX9pHi0jouZJH11zJApVm03keHNc9Jhi1Rr-kBORjBhByMlKr3GFTyL-WXxleCKiXeI~pY~jFlrJwxY2XO2kE0S6-I~m6rsAoSPybB0UTSY1VKjaN9AQk8WgvKW0OUn41~xEr8onZlhr5uDvWzNiE9OQ7wjtmnlwcjOOQ-Vsi4-p7Xxm08LMEVo-CvCk8a22aFfupF1xiZk6v0WIyPcrucDdC4cmxhQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Florida Legislative","date","2025-04-23T00:00:00Z","article","Tallahassee — The Florida Senate completed final action on a series of bills April 19. Below are concise summaries of measures that received floor votes, with recorded tallies. This is a summary of enacted and considered legislation from the day's session; debates and related amendments are referenced in separate pieces where discussion was substantive.

Votes at a glance

- CS/SB 738 — Child care and early learning providers: Modernizes and streamlines regulation of childcare providers; passed 37-0.
- CS/CS/HB 279 (substituted for SB 726) — False reporting (swatting): Expands penalties and restitution for false emergency reports; passed 38-0.
- CS/HB 547 (substituted for SB 656) — Medical debt / billing protections: Extends protections from extraordinary collection actions; passed 38-0.
- CS/CS/HB 85 (substituted for SB 650) — Hazardous walking conditions: Expands criteria for hazardous walking conditions for schoolchildren; passed 38-0.
- CS/SB 584 — Young adult housing support: Requires colleges/universities to prioritize housing and supports for former foster youth and students facing homelessness; passed 38-0.
- CS/CS/SB 508 — Family Empowerment Scholarship Program (parental disclosure of accommodations): Requires private schools to disclose what (if any) accommodations they will provide relative to a student’s IEP; passed 37-1.
- CS/CS/SB 498 — Trust-fund interest for purposes approved by the Supreme Court (IOTA interest): Alters statutory standards for interest on lawyer trust accounts; passed 28-10 (separate article covers debate).
- CS/CS/SB 462 — Transportation omnibus (includes school-bus camera, micro-mobility rules, pilot programs): Passed 37-0.
- CS/SB 302 — Public records exemption (JQC employee personal information): Passed 35-3.
- CS/SB 300 — Public records (appellate court clerks): Passed 35-3.
- CS/HB 11 (substituted for SB 202) — Municipal water and sewer utility rates (Miami Gardens-related fix): Passed 36-2.
- CS/CS/SB 196 — Chemicals and consumer products (labeling/notification): Passed 38-0.
- CS/CS/HB 1525 (substituted for SB 166) — Prearranged transportation services (rideshare impersonation, funding rules): Passed 37-0.
- CS/CS/HB 515 (substituted for SB 1666) — Uniform Commercial Code (digital assets, smart contracts): Passed 38-0.
- CS/CS/HB 1353 (substituted for SB 1412) — Home health care services modernization: Passed 37-0.
- CS/HB 1161 (substituted for SB 1400) — Removal of altered explicit depictions posted without consent (deepfakes): Passed 38-0.
- CS/HB 647 (substituted for SB 998) — Advanced practice registered nurse services (death-certification authority): Passed 38-0.
- CS/CS/HB 1567 (substituted for SB 1736) — Insulin administration by direct support professionals and relatives: Passed 38-0.

Procedure notes and next steps

Most bills passed by the Senate now return to the House if the Senate substituted house language, or proceed to enrollment before being sent to the governor. Several measures were temporarily postponed earlier in the calendar and were later considered. The Senate also considered other public-records measures, transportation items, and departmental technical fixes; some were temporarily postponed for later consideration.

Ending: The day’s votes covered a broad policy range — from public records and health care to transportation and student housing — with several unanimous or near-unanimous results and a small number of contentious items that drew roll-call divisions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Florida Senate in Session 4/23/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A roundup of bills the Senate finalized during the April 19 floor session, with outcomes and brief descriptions.","taxTitle","Senate, Legislative, Florida","taxId",25412,"location","Florida","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":79,"_53":80,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":81,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":82,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6263856,"Senate rejects bill to fast-track development of ‘agricultural enclaves,’ opponents warn of sprawl","/articles/6263856/Florida/Senate-rejects-bill-to-fast-track-development-of-agricultural-enclaves-opponents-warn-of-sprawl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263856-c55eaab1cf550eb59db5e2dd7a20f1fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770716111&Signature=XIfFyOjvPHitRE2h7cp6M0cTBcgGiZVDcagi51GgmeUKoXqo4gHu3HdtoPRqu8JXPjygQmMwaU7wsbWobVqdCH3T0AfAhsIf1mfqeLXR7rmgo-R0cY0NsREGM9lF6CDdJf754kJd2P9UdS7iUxG1yjqAHkwMOnVZvmO4AC7FOWSIHfCvgzV7IJcxSAPdWTEAvUyMhxSeu14CXua-pgr~hMYxxPQL4-V~gzgjbOBG9~eOhwKyXsSKx6iP82pfONsqJddaVa0XQ3R-JINkcDGQC7WaUTYIKq~n59bZKJ7XgDYK2Wrvtbk-offL4ycKpL61KDOAW80dPHHNmtzAZrmNaA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tallahassee — The Florida Senate voted 18-19 on April 19 to reject CS for Senate Bill 1080 (local government land regulation), a measure that would have created a faster certification path for certain farm properties designated as “agricultural enclaves” inside urban growth boundaries.

Senator McLean, sponsor of the bill, argued the proposal protected long-standing property rights for agricultural landowners who find themselves surrounded by urban development and want a clear process to transition property to residential use. McLean said the bill contains checks — including an urban-growth boundary requirement and a date cutoff for eligible parcels — and a sunset provision to limit potential unintended consequences.

Opponents, including Senator Smith and Senator Collins, said the bill would erode local land-use control, silence community input, and trigger a stepwise conversion of rural land into suburban development. Senator Smith noted the certification procedure would be largely mechanical: if the parcel met the statutory checklist the county would be required to approve it, leaving limited discretion for local decision-makers.

“This bill … redefines an agricultural enclave to have only 50% adjacency and creates a process where, once you start, a daisy chain can consume adjacent agricultural land,” Smith said on the floor, arguing the change would accelerate sprawl.

Supporters pointed to protections in the measure including a requirement that a parcel be within an established urban growth boundary and an administrative sunset of the policy if it produced unintended outcomes. Sponsors also said the process was intended to be used sparingly and only for parcels that had been bona fide agricultural operations.

After nearly two hours of debate and multiple amendments, the Senate rejected the measure, 18 in favor and 19 opposed. The sponsor said he will continue to work with stakeholders, but the bill failed to secure the majority needed to advance.

Ending: The vote exposed a persistent divide on land-use policy in Florida: balancing private property rights and development entitlements against local land-use control and long-term preservation of agricultural lands. The sponsor said he would continue discussions; opponents said the result preserves local review authority for now.

","A proposal to create a streamlined route for developing agricultural parcels surrounded by growth failed 18-19 after extended debate. Supporters described the measure as protecting property rights; opponents said the change would enable a chain reaction of conversions and remove meaningful local discretion.",{"_33":84,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":85,"_41":86,"_43":87,"_45":88,"_47":89,"_49":90,"_51":91,"_53":92,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":93,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":94,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6263860,"Senate approves measure to cap interest on client trust accounts after contentious floor debate",630,3600000,4230000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3100022-857d676093680d4039cdec794dd7fca7&start=3600&end=4230","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3100022-857d676093680d4039cdec794dd7fca7/thumbnail_3600000.jpg","/articles/6263860/Florida/Senate-approves-measure-to-cap-interest-on-client-trust-accounts-after-contentious-floor-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6263860-c27e52f3b2eaf50d50dba3472b45f301/orig.mp4?Expires=1770716111&Signature=mOa0U6YsroXs01bpASGbmowuYhNSq5EZMAHIq80ZJ9qRMuMVHtS1KX~jov2tH78Xb8AykVy7p1MozuU7V68-lEAM0WxPD-8fMYpwLUhDs5yRxxsFtqHtOe5j2Z6SOS~MdDkjaZwMJn4EbV3XJz0qXX5La56ZE-F-iGb7qNG2mZxM34jxy-6DDsSNYeuI0HzX7L596AiP34IS5mlX2O23XFJm4bLmr1BcoLAgDSUuPf~u1LPH8I1S3prph~mDbhDtMdFUCdFa3KCDH~4p8oCsaMP7kZj~fg5mmEcxLHsbBTAnaxwjaDwWK~FRDEbUAgkauHmkLFwcTGcyexlVsZTJcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Tallahassee — The Florida Senate on April 19 passed CS/CS/SB 498, a bill that changes how financial institutions must pay interest on lawyer trust accounts (commonly called IOTA accounts), setting a floor tied to simple percentage thresholds and requiring banks to attest to the comparable rates. The measure passed 28-10.

Supporters said the bill is intended to “right-size” a source of unpredictable funding and to return interest earnings to the clients whose funds generate the income. Opponents warned the change will sharply reduce revenue now directed to legal-aid organizations and could spur court challenges.

Senator Grama, 29th District, the bill sponsor, told the chamber the change will stabilize what has been an extremely volatile revenue stream and make the program predictable year to year. He told colleagues that prior court rule changes had pushed the interest payments from relatively modest sums to a single-year total in the hundreds of millions, and that the legislature needed to set a statutory standard for comparable consumer account rates.

“The average that had resulted from this interest on these accounts for many years was about $15 million to $30 million,” Grama said. “Then there was a rule change at the Supreme Court … so in 23-24 the amount went skyrocketed really from $15 to $30 million to $279 million that year because the interest rate was so much higher.”

Opponents, including Senator Berman and Leader Pizzo, pressed on the floor for details about how much funding legal-aid groups rely on now and whether the bill would create service shortfalls for low-income Floridians who need civil legal representation. Senator Berman said the change could be “very hurtful to our legal aid here in the state and they do perform an amazing function.”

Senator Grama responded that the interest earnings are client-generated funds and argued the bill returns those earnings to clients at rates comparable to what banks pay other customers. “I believe this is client's money,” Grama said on the floor, and he argued the statute should not leave that distribution entirely to bank and court practice.

Debate also touched on small community banks’ ability to offer the new required rates. Grama said the statute is voluntary for banks but noted the statutory rate cannot be lower than 0.25% when the federal funds rate is below a threshold and 0.5% when it is higher, and he described those levels as closer to typical consumer checking/money market yields than the prior calculation methods used by the court.

Several senators predicted litigation over the statute. Leader Pizzo said courts would likely decide whether the law is enforceable and that passage would not settle the long-term question about how best to fund civil legal services.

The final vote was 28 in favor, 10 opposed. The bill will now proceed to the House or to enrollment, as provided by legislative process.

Ending: The measure prompted sustained floor discussion about trade-offs between fiscal predictability and the operating budgets of nonprofit legal services. Sponsors said the law aims to provide steady, modest annual funds while returning the remainder to the individual clients who generated the earnings; critics said the change risks diminishing services for vulnerable Floridians pending alternative funding.

","The Florida Senate passed CS/CS/SB 498 to limit interest paid on IOTA/trust accounts to a small, fixed rate range; supporters said the change would stabilize funding streams derived from client trust interest, while opponents warned it would sharply reduce funding for civil legal aid and could prompt litigation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Key measures the Florida Senate took April 19

Senate rejects bill to fast-track development of ‘agricultural enclaves,’ opponents warn of sprawl

Senate approves measure to cap interest on client trust accounts after contentious floor debate