SB 1138 Florida Senate · 2026 Regular Session

Qualified Contractors

Summary

Qualified Contractors; Requiring each county and municipality, respectively, of a specified size to create and implement a program for the purpose of making development preapplication consultation services available at an applicant’s request; authorizing a county or municipality to use a qualified contractor or qualified contractor firm to fulfill specified preapplication services requirements; requiring a local government to establish a registry of a specified number of qualified contractors or qualified contractor firms to conduct certain preapplication services; requiring the governing body of certain local governments and counties to include certain developments in a program that expedites the process for issuing building permits for planned unit developments or phases of a community or subdivision, etc.

Bill status in committee 3 of 5 stages cleared

Introduction

Jan 2026

Committee Review

Feb 2026

Senate Passage

Feb 2026

House Passage

Governor

Introduced Jan 13, 2026 Last action Mar 5, 2026

Maddy AI version diff · 2 comparisons

What changed between versions

S 1138 c1 → S 1138 c2 · 7 edits

MODERATE

The bill was significantly expanded from a single statute to a comprehensive package of six sections that now covers both counties and municipalities, whereas the original version primarily focused on counties. The new version introduces strict, tiered deadlines for local governments to process applications, mandates automatic approval if deadlines are missed, and creates a unified registry for qualified contractors to supplement local staff. It also adds new definitions for 'qualified contractor firm' and expands the scope to include specific administrative review processes for plats and replats.

Scope change

The bill's scope expanded from applying mainly to counties to explicitly including municipalities of a certain size. It also broadened the types of development reviews covered to include plats, replats, and general development permits, in addition to the specific preapplication reviews mentioned in the original text.

SCOPE

Added explicit requirements for municipalities (populations of 10,000+) to create preapplication consultation programs, matching the requirements previously applied only to larger counties.

REQUIREMENT

Introduced strict statutory deadlines (e.g., 45 days for final action) and mandatory automatic approval by operation of law if local governments fail to meet these timelines.

Expanded the registry requirements to include provisions for using contractors to supplement staff for plat approvals and general development permit reviews, not just preapplication reviews.

DEFINITION

Created a new definition for 'qualified contractor firm' to allow businesses, not just individuals, to participate in the registry and provide services.

Added a new definition for 'site plan or development plan approval' to clarify which administrative reviews fall under the new qualified contractor program.

ELIGIBILITY

Modified the definition of 'local government' to specifically target counties with 75,000+ residents and municipalities with 10,000+ residents, removing the broader population thresholds from the original draft.

ENFORCEMENT

Added a specific refund mechanism where local governments must return a percentage of application fees if they fail to process applications within the mandated timeframes.

S 1138 Filed → S 1138 c1 · 7 edits

MODERATE

The bill was amended to expand its scope from just 'local planning' to 'development order preapplication review,' clarifying that it applies to specific permit types like zoning and subdivision approvals rather than all permits. The eligibility criteria for local governments were narrowed to exclude small counties and municipalities, and the timeline for local governments to create required programs was extended from October 2026 to January 2027. Additionally, the rules for registry management were relaxed to allow local governments more discretion in selecting contractors, and audit procedures were changed from a restrictive model to one where audits are permitted but must be reasonable and nondiscriminatory.

Scope change

The bill's scope was broadened to explicitly cover 'development order preapplication review' and clarified that it does not apply to discretionary land use decisions like rezonings or variances requiring public hearings. Applicability was restricted to larger local governments (counties with 25,000+ residents and municipalities with 10,000+ residents), removing the requirement for smaller jurisdictions to participate.

SCOPE

The title and scope were updated to 'development order preapplication review,' clarifying that the bill applies to specific land development permits and explicitly excludes discretionary decisions like rezonings or variances.

ELIGIBILITY

The definition of 'local government' was narrowed to apply only to counties with 25,000+ residents and municipalities with 10,000+ residents, excluding smaller jurisdictions from the mandatory program requirements.

TIMELINE

The deadline for local governments to establish the qualified contractor program was extended from October 1, 2026, to January 1, 2027.

REQUIREMENT

Registry requirements were relaxed; local governments are no longer strictly prohibited from adding contractors upon request if they meet minimum experience requirements, and they may now consider a minimum of 5 years of experience for selection.

The requirement for local governments to deem applications 'administratively complete' was added, shifting the process from automatic approval to a status of completeness pending final action.

ENFORCEMENT

Audit procedures were changed from a prohibition on auditing until standard procedures are created to a permission to audit, provided the audits are reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and publicly available.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'Application' was simplified to focus on permit requests rather than plans or plats, and the definition of 'Permit' was expanded to explicitly exclude discretionary land use decisions.

Floor votes · Senate Feb 24, 2026

How they voted

23–0

Passed · 1 other

Total votes 24

Feb 24, 2026

D Democratic5

5 Yea

100% Yea

I Independent1

0% Nay

R Republican18

18 Yea

100% Yea

Vote distribution

All Yea All Nay Mixed No data

Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions

Key actions

Committee

Feb 26, 2026

Upper · Passed

Pending reference review -under Rule 4.7(2) - (Committee Substitute)

upper

Feb 24, 2026

Senate · Passed

Senate Vote: pass (23-0-1)

senate

Feb 19, 2026

Upper · Passed

On Committee agenda-- Rules, 02/24/26, 12:00 pm, 412 Knott Building

upper

Feb 12, 2026

Upper · Passed

Pending reference review under Rule 4.7(2) - (Committee Substitute)

upper

Feb 5, 2026

Upper · Passed

On Committee agenda-- Judiciary, 02/10/26, 12:00 pm, 110 Senate Building

upper

Jan 20, 2026

Upper · Passed

Favorable by Community Affairs; YEAS 6 NAYS 2

upper

Jan 15, 2026

Upper · Passed

On Committee agenda-- Community Affairs, 01/20/26, 1:00 pm, 37 Senate Building

upper

Jan 13, 2026

Introduced

upper

Jan 12, 2026

Committee

Referred to Community Affairs; Judiciary; Rules

upper

1 primary · 0 co-sponsors