Florida Bill Could See Higher Flood Insurance Costs This Year
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A bill trying to "bolster hurricane relief and recovery" in Florida could end up increasing the cost of flood insurance for thousands of homeowners in the state, experts warned, adding more weight to their growing financial burden.
Senate Bill 180, which has already passed both the Florida House and Senate with nearly unanimous support, is now heading to Governor Ron DeSantis' desk. The bill aims to help homeowners in the Sunshine State rebuild more quickly after natural disasters, which are becoming more frequent and destructive due to climate change.
However, in its attempt to expedite these efforts, critics argue that the legislation may hinder residents from implementing key changes that would enhance their homes' resilience to extreme weather events.
Why It Matters
Florida homeowners have seen the cost of home insurance skyrocket in recent years due to a combination of more frequent and severe natural disasters, widespread fraud, and excessive litigation.
Although the market has stabilized over the past year, homeowners in the state continue to pay some of the highest premiums in the country. At $2,625 per year, the average cost of home insurance in the state is 24 percent higher than the national average of $2,110, according to NerdWallet.
Flood insurance, which is not required by law, is an additional cost on top of the standard property insurance policy for homeowners in the state. According to NerdWallet, the average annual cost of flood insurance in the state is $865 for a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policy.
Changes introduced by SB 180 could increase the cost of flood insurance even further for Florida homeowners, potentially discouraging some from obtaining coverage for their homes at all—a risky proposition in such a disaster-prone state.
What To Know
SB 180 has been celebrated by sponsor Nick DiCeglie, a Republican state senator representing Indian Rocks Beach, as legislation that would offer Florida homeowners "a clear path to recovery" after being hit by a storm.
"We're fighting for families to focus on rebuilding without additional delays or burdens, especially for those who sustained damage or lost their homes," the senator said in a press release.
"Working with our state and local emergency responders, we can streamline restoration efforts and improve emergency response coordination, fortifying and strengthening our communities before the next storm."
Newsweek reached out to DiCeglie via email for comment on Monday.
A worker helps raise a home with jacks and framing material in Treasure Island, Florida, on May 23, 2025.
A worker helps raise a home with jacks and framing material in Treasure Island, Florida, on May 23, 2025.The bill's efforts to streamline rebuilding after a hurricane, however, include a two-year freeze on the adoption of stricter building codes that could strengthen Florida homes, a measure that critics say would prevent local governments from introducing important reforms.
It would also make it easier for homeowners whose properties have been destroyed or damaged in a natural disaster to avoid elevating their homes once they rebuild—an improvement that experts consider crucial to strengthen residences against more frequent and more severe extreme weather events.
Under the proposed legislation, only homes that have suffered storm damage equal to more than 50 percent of their value must be demolished and rebuilt entirely—the minimum requirement set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Strengthening a home exposed to potentially devastating natural disasters not only makes this property more resilient, protecting the owner and their assets, but it also makes coverage more affordable. Insurers often offer discounts to policyholders who make efforts to strengthen their homes against extreme weather events under programs such as FEMA's Flood Mitigation Assistance Grant and the Sunshine State's Elevate Florida.
This state-run program, launched last year, offers to cover at least 75 percent of the cost of mitigation projects, including elevating a home damaged in a storm, which promises to lower insurance costs and increase the property's value.
A study conducted by the state and cited by several local newspapers found that 44 out of the 122 communities that currently elevate their homes after an impactful natural disaster would lose points toward discounts on flood insurance premiums due to SB 180.
Twelve would no longer qualify for the level of discount they currently benefit from: Bay County, Leon County, Orange County, Dania Beach, Jupiter Beach, Palm Springs, Estero, Lake Mary, Hialeah, Bonita Springs, Hollywood and the Pensacola Beach Santa Rosa Island Authority.
According to the study's estimates, approximately 44,000 Florida homeowners would end up paying more for flood insurance coverage as a result of the bill taking effect, resulting in a total annual increase of $1.6 million statewide, or $36 per person.
What People Are Saying
Florida state Senator Nick DiCeglie, who sponsored the bill, in a statement: "If we can keep one more person in their home to keep them out of the 50 percent rule, that's one person that does not have to deal with the incredibly stressful situation of tearing down their home and elevating."
Del Schwalls, a floodplain management consultant, told the Tampa Bay Times: "It's really frustrating. It prevents anyone from trying to fix this flood, repair, flood, repair cycle."
Kimberleigh Dinkins, policy and planning director of advocacy group 1000 Friends of Florida, in a statement: "A lot of times, a local government can evaluate the impact that a storm has on their community, and make adjustments to their land development code to make themselves more resilient. Under this scenario, they wouldn't be able to do that."
She added: "It's removing one of the tools in the toolbox to increase resiliency. It basically is saying: okay, you have more opportunities to build back in a way that's resulting in flooding."
What Happens Next
The bill is now awaiting the governor's signature, but DeSantis has not yet indicated whether he will sign the legislation. If signed, the bill's provisions could take effect during the upcoming hurricane season, potentially affecting insurance premiums and building standards statewide amid ongoing market volatility.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State DOT refuses to sign off on $10 land sale that could modernize Long Island's busiest LIRR line
The state Department of Transportation seems ready to run out the clock on a $10 deal to help electrify Long Island's busiest LIRR line — which could cost Suffolk County over $2 million in federal funds if the agreement falls through, local officials charged County Executive Ed Romaine called out the DOT for stonewalling an infrastructure project he said would clean up both the delay-ridden commute and the environment — all over a pending vacant land purchase between Suffolk and the Metropolitan Transportation Agency. If DOT does not sign off on the land deal by June 30, roughly $2.1 million earmarked from the federal American Rescue Plan to help fund the project will be lost, according to Suffolk officials. 'This should have been done, this whole line should be electrical,' Romaine, a, Republican, told The Post from Port Jefferson. 'This is the best land deal the MTA will ever make — which isn't exactly known for its fiscal responsibility.' Romaine said the agency is ready to move forward with the project, but did not specify how much the project would cost. The vacant land, nearly 50 acres that was once part of the Lawrence Aviation Superfund site, is currently controlled by the Suffolk County Landbank. Landbank officials offered to sell it to the MTA last year for just $10 so the agency can begin building infrastructure to electrify the unreliable diesel-fueled, double-decker trains that still run through the Port Jefferson line — a LIRR route that 30% of all riders live along. It's also the busiest branch on Long Island, according to MTA data. But the DOT balked at blessing the project, citing the need to complete an easement process as well as floating other potential options for the property, Suffolk officials charged. Stephen Canzoneri, DOT spokesperson representing Long Island, confirmed the agency 'is in the process of delivering a free property easement' to 'facilitate MTA's property acquisition,' and said the process will take several months. Even state Assemblywoman Rebecca Kassay, a Democrat, offered to personally pay the $10 fee to get the deal done — but said she was told the state still wouldn't allow the sale. Romaine has even called on Gov. Kathy Hochul to step in. He argued DOT's stalling tactics go against Hochul's own green goals. 'Governor Hochul supports any effort to advance meaningful transportation investments in the region and will work with all stakeholders to resolve the complicated land use issues impacting this potential project,' Kara Cumoletti, a spokesperson for the governor, told The Post. The MTA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State lawmaker slams Raleigh County Board of Education for counselor layoffs
BECKLEY, WV (WVNS) — A Fayette County lawmaker criticized Raleigh County School officials for terminating a number of school counselor positions earlier this year. Republican Delegate Elliott Pritt of Fayette County said that school counselors were now a necessary aspect to the state's education system because West Virginia has the highest number of foster children in the U.S. Counselors are equipped to help with both special needs and student behavior. In March the Raleigh County Board of Education voted to terminate, transfer or cut the hours of a number of school counselors. Pritt said recent legislation could force the Board to rehire some of the counselors. 'We had to pass a bill this year in response to a decision Raleigh County made to fire so many of their school counselors, which is a terrible decision,' said Pritt. 'A terrible decision. Whoever made that decision should have their education degrees removed, and I don't mind going on the record and saying that.' Raleigh County Board of Education members said in March that they were forced to balance a budget with less funding from Charleston. CEO of WV Coal Association says trade war with China will impact coal operations Raleigh County Schools Superintendent Dr. Serena Starcher said in March that the Board was following the wishes of school principals, who had suggested the cuts the BOE later approved. Public schools are expected to lose more funding to private schools and providers of homeschool curricula through growth of the Hope Scholarship program, which transfers tax dollars from public schools to support private institutions. Pritt also called on private schools to admit a growing population of children in the foster care system, many of whom need the services of school counselors and individualized educational plans. Prosecutor warns of potential charges against women who miscarry in West Virginia The president of the West Virginia Education Association has said that most private schools do not pay professional wages, which would be required to attract school counselors and many certified teachers. State law now requires one counselor for every 250 students in public schools but does not make the same requirement for private schools. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Connecticut State Senate advances legislation aimed at lowering electricity bills
CONNECTICUT (WTNH) — After a brief debate and a nearly unanimous vote, the Connecticut State Senate advanced a major piece of energy legislation that proponents say will deliver a modest reduction of electric bills for ratepayers across the state. The legislation came after months of delicate, closed-door negotiations between legislators and members of the Lamont administration who were faced with a tangled web of competing interests within Connecticut's energy ecosystem. Gov. Lamont: Budget on the '1-yard line' 'We tried to thread the needle very, very carefully,' State Sen. Norm Needleman, the Democratic co-chair of the legislature's Energy and Technology Committee, said. In threading that needle, policymakers said they'd opted for changes that could deliver as much as $200 worth of annual reductions to ratepayers — depending on the size of their bill and other factors. That reduction will be delivered by shifting certain costs of the public benefits portion of ratepayer bills. Revenue from the public benefits charge is used to fund a range of government-directed energy programs, including the procurement of renewable energy. The charge was at the epicenter of ratepayer outrage last summer when a confluence of factors, including historically hot weather and costs associated with the operation of Millstone Nuclear Power Station, caused bills to spike. The Millstone-related costs were the primary driver of last summer's spike in the public benefits charge and have since come off of ratepayer bills as planned, but the flood of attention paid to the public benefits portion of the bill spurred lawmakers to scrutinize other programs funded by the charge. 'Some of the public benefits charges have already fallen off the bill,' Needleman said, referencing the Millstone costs. 'I've argued for a long time that there was a one time spike that happened quickly but is coming down at a slower rate. So, we're just sort of adding to how fast it's coming down.' Instead of placing the costs of certain programs on the backs of ratepayers, lawmakers will utilize bonding — essentially swiping the state's credit card — and cuts in certain areas. For Republicans, those cuts are welcome but not as expansive as they would've liked to see. State Sen. Ryan Fazio, the leading Republican senator on the Energy and Technology Committee, has long argued that the whole sum of programs funded by the public benefits charge off of ratepayer bills. Under that proposal, the programs would be neither covered by ratepayers or the state's credit card. Rather, those programs would be subject to the legislature's biannual budgetary process — a process that would in all likelihood mean the outright elimination of some programs. 'Senate Republicans and I have argued for years that we should be eliminating the public benefits charge,' Fazio said. 'But we're at least glad that we're able to find a compromise with our Democratic Party and pass legislation that delivers the first cut of any significance in public benefits programs.' The bill now heads to the state House of Representatives for consideration. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
