Blue Ribbon Projects bill teed up for potential nail-biter Senate vote

A measure that would streamline large-scale development proposals in return for setting aside reserve land has cleared the Senate Rules Committee and is now teed up for a floor vote.

But its fate is still uncertain as concerns remain over the bill’s language and scope.

An amended version of the bill (SB 354) from Sen. Stan McClain cleared the Senate Rules Committee on a close 12-10 vote.

The measure 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.

Under the bill, the plan must prescribe the development property over a 50-year planning period by meeting strict statutory requirements. Landowners would still have to earn approval from local governments based on compliance with the statutes, including development orders, and concurrency.

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, though it has yet to be scheduled. The Senate preemptively placed its version on the Special Order calendar for Thursday, pending approval, which has now been given.

Despite movement through the Committee process, the measure faces an uncertain fate on the Senate floor, if the close vote in the Rules Committee is any indication.

Sen. Jason Pizzo voted “yes” on the bill despite a host of reservations he articulated Tuesday, including that it would stifle local negotiations over large-scale projects that most need them. He described the measure as written as having “gaping holes” that give deference to big developers whose projects could substantially alter a community’s character.

Pizzo voted in favor of the bill despite reservations, but said if concerns were not adequately addressed, he would “be a fierce advocate to make it die.”

And Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, the Rules Chair, was even more specific in her opposition. She decried legislative trends in recent years in which developers or other business interests, hitting walls at the local government level and facing the prospect of protracted legal arguments, rely upon the Legislature to pass preemption bills addressing “one-off” scenarios.

“It’s time for us to take a serious look at growth management, not in a piecemeal fashion, as we have been doing these past couple of years, or on one-off developments and for projects that benefit one developer or one business sector,” she said.

Passidomo said the bill was too broad and lacked enforceability. But she made clear she didn’t oppose the overall policy goal, acknowledging that too often local governments throw up unmanageable bureaucratic hurdles.

“I believe the Blue Ribbon policy has merit and should be thoughtfully considered, but not today and not this Session,” she said. “It should be considered as part of an overall discussion of how we want the state to grow and develop over the next 30, 50, 100 years, or more.”

Passidomo said she spoke to McClain at length about the bill and celebrated that he has agreed to take the lead on developing policy that addresses growth management through that lens.

Those who support the bill, so far in the majority, agree that growth must be effectively managed and see McClain’s bill as a way to do just that.

“I think that what Senator McClain is bringing before us speaks to quality over quantity. I don’t believe that the growth, in and of itself, is the problem. It’s the unmanaged growth,” Sen. Danny Burgess said. “A model that permanently preserves 60% of the land with the combination of thoughtfully developing the remaining 40%, to me, is responsible and smart.”

And Sen. Don Gaetz more specifically praised the bill for something critics lamented: that it contains broad language. Rather than being a handout to developers, Gaetz said, the flexible language accommodates the reality developers face when planning.

Whether the Senate bill or the House counterpart — which are now largely in alignment — are able to earn approval among the full chambers is anyone’s guess. But both bill sponsors have shown a willingness to amend the bill to mitigate concerns.

Elizabeth Alvi, Senior Director of Policy for Audubon Florida, didn’t offer support or opposition to the measure during the House bill’s second-to-last Committee stop, but praised an amendment to the bill “prohibiting golf courses, data centers and solar fields within the reserve.” She said that would ensure the conservation lands acquired under the legislation would “remain focused on long-term conservation and values.”

While Alvi did say in the Senate Rules Committee Tuesday that she opposes the bill as written, she similarly heaped praise for McClain’s responsiveness to her concerns, hinting that additional amendments could be on the way to the Senate floor.