Work group pares 160 vetoed water projects to 69 for final ranking; members to submit top 5 by 2 p.m.

The Combined Work Group on Water Programs narrowed an original list of 160 vetoed water projects to 69 highlighted projects and asked members to submit a ranked top five from those 69 by 2 p.m. today, with a final group review scheduled for tomorrow morning and a submission to the speaker's office afterward.

The chair of the work group said the packet contained “our original spreadsheet, which was a combined total of 160 VITO water projects” and that the highlighted 69 were “ones this work group has prioritized over all the remaining projects.” The chair told members the list was built by combining projects submitted by members and that earlier rankings would also be used in the final comparison.

Why it matters: the work group exists to reconsider projects that were cut or vetoed from the state budget and to recommend which ones should be resubmitted for the speaker’s reconsideration. The group’s choices determine which local water-supply and water-quality projects get a renewed opportunity for state funding consideration.

Key points from the meeting:

• Process and timeline: Members were told to review the 69 highlighted projects and provide “your top 5 projects and priority order” from that reduced list; those submissions are due by 2 p.m. today, and the group will complete a final review tomorrow morning and “submit our final list to the speaker.” The chair reiterated that the original rankings submitted on Friday will also be used for comparison in the next phase.

• Weighting rule: The chair explained a weighting approach to break ties and set priorities: projects that were suggested by two or more work group members “already get a higher priority because more than 1 member has said I really think this project should be reconsidered.” The chair said “the more members that request that project, the more weight that project will have in the final round.”

• Outcome for lone-supported projects: The chair warned that projects ranked only by a single member are likely to be dropped: if a project was a member’s top earlier but not ranked by others in this round, “it's going to get lower ranked… If it was number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10, and no 1 else has recommended it for reconsideration on this round, the project will be dropped from the list.”

• Member comments and context: Several representatives praised the process as collaborative and useful for giving communities another chance after vetoes. Representative Mayfield noted the importance of local cost sharing and offered a local example: “we have a half cent sales tax on, in our county that was voted on on a referendum because they knew how important water quality was for our community,” suggesting counties consider voter-approved local funding to provide matching funds. Representative Black described the work group as a way to be more surgical than the executive’s “veto pen,” saying the group can be “the scalpel” to refine funding priorities.

• Scope and limits: The chair reminded members this was about “the state of Florida's money and not House District one's money,” urging members to prioritize projects with broader merit rather than only district-level preferences. There were no formal votes recorded; the meeting established procedure and deadlines for the next step of ranking and reconsideration.

The group adjourned after members were invited to discuss projects informally and turn in ranked lists before the 2 p.m. deadline. The work group will meet tomorrow morning for a final review and to forward its recommendations to the speaker's office.