Permitting Reform Requires Capacity, Not Just Authority

Permitting reform is often framed as a fight over who should perform the review: the building department or a private provider.

That debate misses the harder problem.

In many jurisdictions, there are simply not enough qualified people available to keep pace with the work.

This is not a new warning. In a 2014 survey conducted by the International Code Council and the National Institute of Building Sciences, 45.6 percent of responding code professionals were between 55 and 64 years old. Only 3.3 percent were between 25 and 34. More than a decade later, the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects approximately 14,800 openings for construction and building inspectors each year through 2035, with most of those openings coming from retirements and people leaving the occupation rather than workforce expansion.

The public sector’s common response is to spread vacant responsibilities across the people who remain.

A plan examiner leaves, but the work does not disappear. It may land with a building official, inspector or employee whose primary responsibility is somewhere else. That person learns the additional role while still carrying the original workload, often without the time or support needed to build real depth.

The department keeps operating, but it has not solved the succession problem.

That is why Florida’s private-provider framework matters. Private providers can add qualified review and inspection capacity without requiring every jurisdiction to permanently staff for its highest possible workload.

Florida strengthened that framework in 2026. The current law allows an owner, or an authorized contractor, to select a qualified private provider at any time. Local enforcement agencies must maintain electronic registration systems and may not charge registration fees. For commercial projects, the law also requires specified permit-fee reductions when private providers perform plans review, inspections or both. The changes took effect July 1, 2026.

Those are meaningful reforms.

They remove unnecessary friction and make it harder for local administrative practices to defeat an option already authorized by state law. But they do not create more qualified professionals, and they do not automatically repair a fragmented permitting process.

A developer does not experience zoning, floodplain review, fire review, utilities, engineering and building review as separate government functions. The developer experiences one permit.

Moving the building-code portion outside city hall can save time, but not if the same file remains stalled in another queue. The current statute recognizes that distinction. A local building official generally may not repeat a building-code review completed by a private provider, but the jurisdiction may still review local ordinances, floodplain requirements, site issues and administrative or life-safety matters outside the private provider’s scope.

That makes coordination just as important as authority.

Local governments need clear intake requirements, reliable electronic registration, defined handoffs and a practical method for resolving disagreements. Private providers need to submit consistent documentation and understand what remains within the jurisdiction’s authority. Owners and contractors need to decide early who is responsible for each part of the approval process.

Technology can improve this system, but it should increase the productivity of qualified professionals rather than pretend their judgment is no longer necessary. Florida law now permits automated or software-based review for certain single-trade plans, but a properly qualified private provider must still certify that the plans comply with the applicable codes.

That is the right balance.

Software can organize documents, identify missing information, perform repetitive checks and make review comments easier to track. The licensed professional remains responsible for the decision.

Private providers should be viewed as part of Florida’s permitting capacity, not as an emergency escape hatch used only after a project becomes delayed. They are an important pressure-release valve, but they are not a substitute for recruiting, training and retaining the next generation of code professionals.

The success of permitting reform will not be measured by how many new procedures are adopted. It will be measured by whether review times become more predictable, avoidable resubmittals decline and qualified professionals can process more work without compromising safety.