Council pauses recently adopted Ybor parking rules after state law (SB 180) raises preemption questions

City attorneys and staff told Tampa City Council on Wednesday that Senate Bill 180, a state law with retroactive language, has complicated enforcement of land-development-code amendments the council adopted after Aug. 1, 2024 — specifically a September 2024 set of amendments governing Ybor City principal-use parking lots.

Susan Johnson Velez, deputy city attorney, told council the statute’s Section 28 applies to municipalities listed in a federal disaster declaration (Hillsborough County was listed) and bars municipalities from proposing or adopting amendments to comprehensive plans or land-development regulations that are “more restrictive or burdensome” than state law allows. The law includes a retroactive effective date (Aug. 1, 2024) and a private-rights mechanism: a private party may notify the city and seek rescission of an already-adopted amendment; if the city does not rescind or void the action within a statutory period, the private party may sue and seek attorney’s fees.

The language is short on definitions — “more restrictive or burdensome” is not defined — and litigation and legislative remedies are in play. Johnson Velez told council the legal department has received at least one notice asserting the Ybor parking ordinance violates SB 180 and that, because the ordinance was adopted after the retroactive date, the ordinance may be void ab initio if judged to be more restrictive. For clarity and to limit legal exposure, staff recommended and showed draft ordinance language that preserves some previously adopted elements (e.g., staffing requirements for principal-use parking lots) while removing provisions that likely fall within the statute’s restrictions (for example, requiring a security guard for each lot or annual operation-and-security plans), and reverting some approvals to earlier administrative pathways.

Council members and neighborhood speakers said they are concerned about the legal uncertainty and asked that the city preserve the core public-safety elements of the Ybor rules if possible. Councilwoman Lynn Hertek said she did not support “pulling back” public-safety protections and asked staff to explore alternatives that keep safety standards intact in some form while complying with state law.

Staff recommended proceeding by preparing targeted ordinances and approaching each affected code section separately (rather than repealing large blocks of code), so that if one provision is successfully challenged it does not invalidate unrelated amendments. Planning and legal staff also told council they will take items that remain contested to the planning commission for review and return the refined ordinances to council for first and second readings once the council provides direction. Several council motions at the meeting directed staff to set aside certain July 2024 and July 2025 proposed code amendments pending statutory clarification, and the council voted unanimously to do so on multiple items.

Public commenters from Ybor and other neighborhoods urged the council to preserve public-notice and community-review elements of the Ybor rules. Staff said they will pursue legislative clarification with state associations and monitor litigation but urged work-arounds that preserve public safety and transparency where possible.