DynamicSim logo
S

Politics

State Legislature

Florida Sports Infrastructure and Small Business Growth Act

Status: FailedState: FloridaIssue: Small Business
Back

Summary

This bill lets Florida local governments create special districts to help fund pro football stadium projects and nearby improvements, but only if private sources cover most costs and no new statewide general tax is used. It also requires at least 35% of contracts to go to Florida small businesses, adds local hiring and apprenticeship programs, mandates annual transparency reports, and allows public support to be cut back or recovered if promises are not met.

Full text

This bill authorizes local governments to create Sports Infrastructure Growth Districts for professional football stadium construction, renovation, and surrounding public improvements.

Any participating team or ownership group must provide a majority of total project funding from private sources. Public participation may come only from locally approved tax-increment revenue, ticket surcharges, naming-rights revenue, sponsorship revenue, or district-generated fees. No new statewide general tax may be imposed.

At least 50% 35% of district construction, procurement, and operations contracts must be awarded to Florida-based small businesses, with preference for firms located in the host county. Participating projects must also establish apprenticeship and local hiring programs.

Each district must publish annual reports detailing public revenue used, private investment secured, jobs created, contracts awarded, and economic activity generated.

Public support must be reduced, suspended, or recovered if the team fails to meet its funding, construction, reporting, or economic-development commitments.

Amendment history (1)
  • Amendment #1•
    Increase local business requirement from 35% to 50%

Sponsor

Samuel SharpRepublican Party

Cosponsors

Archived proceedingsFlorida Chamber
Debate in progress

Florida Sports Infrastructure and Small Business Growth Act

Floor statements
6
Speakers
3
Chair bulletins
2

Floor statements

-
-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
Voting is now open for 72 hours.
Closes:
Members may vote Aye, Nay, or Present. Results are visible in real time.
+ React
Quick reactions
-
-(?-?)
Pinned
Chamber bulletin
Floor debate is open for 72 hours.
Opened:
Closes:
Keep remarks on topic. Voting opens automatically when debate closes.
+ React
Quick reactions
-
-(?-?)
Result: failed.
Aye: 48 seats
Nay: 52 seats
Present: 0 seats
Total seats: 100
+ React
Quick reactions
-
-(?-?)
Motion voting has closed.
Motion: Abby Shaw Amendment I
Outcome: Passed (incorporating into bill text)
Aye: 78 seats
Nay: 22 seats
Present: 0 seats
Quorum: Met
+ React
Quick reactions
-
-(?-?)
Mr. President, I appreciate Representative Carrington’s point about guardrails, because too many stadium deals become giveaways dressed up as development. What makes this bill worth considering is that it puts the burden where it belongs: private money covers most of the cost, there’s no new statewide general tax, and if the promises aren’t kept, public support can be pulled back. Just as important to me, 35% of contracts going to Florida small businesses means the local hardware supplier, caterer, and contractor get a fair shot instead of watching the well-connected take everything.
+ React
Quick reactions
-
-(?-?)
Mr. President, I come at this as someone who has spent most of her life asking whether a public investment is actually built to last. Stadium debates too often go wrong when the public carries the risk and private actors keep the upside. This bill is not perfect, but it does make a serious attempt to answer that concern by requiring private sources to cover most costs, barring a new statewide general tax, and providing a mechanism to claw back support if promises are not kept.
I also want to speak to the small business piece, because that is where this proposal rises or falls for me. If Florida is going to help assemble infrastructure around a pro football project, then the gains cannot stop at the suite level or the developer’s office. The 35% small-business contracting requirement, local hiring expectations, apprenticeship provisions, and annual transparency reports are the kinds of conditions that turn a flashy project into something that can actually touch working families and local trades.
Now, I know the argument we will hear—and have heard in chambers before on bills like this—is that special districts become a shell game for subsidies. That is a fair warning, and it is exactly why the reporting requirements and recovery provisions matter. If those guardrails are enforced honestly, this is less a blank check than a performance contract. On balance, I can support that approach.
+ React
Quick reactions