Senate temporarily postpones ‘Blue Ribbon projects’ bill, but it’s not dead yet

After opposition from several members, the Senate has temporarily postponed a measure that would streamline large-scale development proposals in return for setting aside reserve land.

The bill (SB 354) from Sen. Stan McClain offers a framework supporters say better aligns growth, conservation and infrastructure planning. It would establish “Blue Ribbon” projects, which would apply to landowners who control or own at least 15,000 or more contiguous acres, an amount increased from the 10,000 acres the bill originally included.

The language would require participating landowners to conserve at least 60% of the property.

But critics, including former Senate President Kathleen Passidomo, as well as Sens. Jennifer Bradley, Don Gaetz, Jason Pizzo, Corey Simon and Tom Wright, argued the language is too broad and could lead to developments that some communities, particularly those in rural areas, don’t want.

Passidomo, who also opposed the bill through the Committee process, said the bill’s language does not include what people typically think of when they hear the word “conservation.”

“We think of walking trails, and kayaking, and you know, passive recreation. We don’t think of utility sites,” she said during floor debate.

She also questioned whether the bill would allow for the construction of a nuclear power site, or what would happen if the 15,000 acres spanned multiple counties. That could set up a scenario in which, for example, one county may get all the development, while another gets the reserve area.

Saying she was “so distressed by this bill,” Passidomo lamented that it “could be 100%, or 99.9% industrial.”

She also pointed to Senate staff analysis of the bill that included a page and a half of technical deficiencies.

But supporters throughout the measure’s various stops in the Senate have argued it’s an incentive for developers to provide needed reserve lands, and local government would still have a say, with approval required based on compliance with state statute, including development orders and concurrency.

Sen. Jim Boyd, who will take the gavel as Senate President next term, praised McClain for consistently responding to concerns from members in the Senate and working to align its product with that in the House.

“I believe this bill is ready for prime time,” he said, responding to Passidomo, who said it wasn’t. Boyd added that he thinks “it’s the right thing to do and the right time to do it.”

And he criticized Passidomo, essentially calling her opposition an act of hypocrisy because her previous priority legislation, the Live Local Act, also included local preemption. Passidomo didn’t respond to the critique.

Despite the Senate’s postponement, the bill is not yet dead.

A House version of the bill (HB 299) from Rep. Lauren Melo cleared its final Committee last week and also now awaits a floor vote on the House second reading calendar, meaning either the Senate or House versions could still come back up.

While it appears the measure has a challenging road in the upper chamber, it seems clear the issue is likely to resurface in the 2027 Legislative Session should it fail to reach the finish line this year. Even those who spoke in opposition said they agree with the measure in theory.

“Let’s come back next year and fix” the issues, Bradley said, echoing remarks from other critics of the bill’s current language.

And with Boyd’s support, the measure is poised to be in leadership’s favor after the 2026 election cycle.