By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida
Florida has spent the last several years telling local governments to get out of the way.
Gov. Ron DeSantis has made cutting bureaucracy a cornerstone of his administration. The Legislature has repeatedly strengthened Florida’s private-provider law, most recently through HB 803, to speed permitting and prevent local governments from inventing new obstacles.
So, here’s a simple question.
What happens when a local government appears to ignore those reforms?
That’s where this story gets interesting.
A Florida contractor spent months asking what should have been a straightforward question: Can Marion County require paperwork and notarization that don’t appear on the state’s own form when state law appears to prohibit local governments from imposing more stringent procedures?
He never got an answer.
Not from Marion County.
Not from the Florida Building Commission.
Instead, each level of government found a reason not to decide.
Marion County concluded its own appeals board couldn’t determine whether the county’s interpretation of state law was correct. The contractor then appealed to the Florida Building Commission, the agency responsible for administering the Florida Building Code. Rather than determine whether Marion County’s additional requirements complied with state law, the Commission’s Code Administration Technical Advisory Committee recommended declining to answer because staff concluded that the appeal had been brought through the wrong procedural vehicle.
Think about that for a minute.
If neither the county imposing the requirement nor the state agency charged with interpreting the Building Code will decide whether the requirement is lawful, who does?
This is a bureaucratic maze that would make 1970s Kremlin workers blush.
The paperwork itself may sound insignificant until you think about what it means at scale. Imagine if your electric company required every monthly payment to be notarized before it would accept it. You’d rightly wonder why government had inserted another unnecessary step into something that already worked. Contractors who work across multiple jurisdictions face those kinds of extra requirements every day.
And that’s why this story isn’t really about Marion County.
It’s about whether Florida’s promise to reduce red tape survives once local governments decide to test the limits.
Here’s what happened.
CT Solutions Vice President Tim Hunt wasn’t asking Marion County for special treatment. He was asking the county to use the form the state had already adopted.
The Florida Building Commission has adopted an official Notice to Building Official for Florida’s private-provider program. Marion County instead requires applicants to use a county version that adds paperwork and notarization that do not appear on the Commission’s form. Florida law also says local governments may not adopt procedures or standards more stringent than those prescribed in the private-provider statute.
Hunt first tried to resolve the issue locally, meeting with county officials and appealing the building official’s decision. But before the appeal could be heard, Assistant County Attorney Linda Blackburn concluded the county’s own License Review Board lacked the authority to determine whether Marion County’s interpretation of state law was correct.
So, Hunt did what the law appeared to contemplate. He appealed to the Florida Building Commission.
During the hearing, Hunt repeatedly tried to explain that wasn’t what he was asking for.
“I was not asking for a petition for a declaratory statement,” he told the committee. “I was asking for an appeal on the building official’s refusal.”
He explained that he had already exhausted the local administrative process before turning to the Commission because state law appeared to direct him there.
The committee never answered the question.
Instead, it answered a different one.
One exchange captured exactly why this case matters.
Committee member Julio Boza confirmed with staff that the Florida Building Commission had adopted an official Notice to Building Official form and that Marion County’s version added a notarization requirement that did not appear on the state’s form.
That should have been the beginning of the discussion.
Instead, it was the end.
To be fair, Marion County has raised separate legal arguments involving utility releases and the authority of private providers under another section of the Building Code. Those arguments deserve consideration and may ultimately prove persuasive.
But they aren’t this issue.
The question presented to the Commission was much narrower: Can a local government require additional forms, signatures and notarization beyond what appears on the state’s adopted form when state law prohibits more stringent local procedures?
That question is no longer confined to Marion County.
Even as Hunt’s appeal was working its way through the state process, a remarkably similar dispute surfaced in the Town of Oakland. Acting as Oakland’s contracted Building Official, former Marion County Building Official Michael Savage rejected a homeowner’s authorization to use a private provider, arguing the revised statute requires “explicit written authorization” beyond the paperwork submitted. Savage wrote that the city was simply enforcing “the minimum” requirements of the new law because “an acknowledgement as submitted is significantly different than an authorization.” The contractor responded that Florida law requires written authorization but “does not prescribe specific wording,” arguing the homeowner had already authorized the use of the private provider in writing.
The Oakland dispute illustrates why the state’s silence matters.
Contractors and local governments are already reaching different conclusions about the same statute, with no statewide authority stepping in to resolve the disagreement.
And that’s what should concern every contractor, developer and property owner in Florida.
Because this isn’t really about Marion County.
It’s about whether local governments can effectively become the final authority on state law simply because the state declines to rule.
The Legislature has already spoken.
The Governor has already spoken.
Heck, last week the attorney general spoke, ruling on a number of issues related to private providers.
Nobody is asking the state to pass another bill.
They’re asking the state to enforce the ones it already has.
That responsibility now rests with DBPR Secretary Melanie S. Griffin. No new legislation is needed. No special task force is required. What is needed is leadership — a willingness to tell local governments when they’ve crossed the line and to ensure the reforms passed by the Legislature are applied consistently across Florida. If the DeSantis administration is serious about reducing red tape, Secretary Griffin has an opportunity to prove it.
The process also raises uncomfortable questions about appearances.
One of the members who voted to recommend that the Commission decline Hunt’s appeal was Michael Savage. Before joining the Code Administration Technical Advisory Committee, Savage served as Marion County’s Building Official and later defended the county’s position before seconding the motion recommending that the Commission decline to answer the appeal.
Since then, Savage has continued advancing essentially the same interpretation in another jurisdiction. This week, acting as the contracted Building Official for the Town of Oakland, he rejected a homeowner’s authorization for use of a private provider, writing that the revised statute requires “explicit written authorization” beyond the paperwork submitted and that the city was simply enforcing “the minimum” requirements of the new law.
No one is suggesting Savage violated any law by participating.
But when the state declines to answer a question involving an interpretation you previously defended — and continue to advocate elsewhere — reasonable people are going to ask whether you should have participated in that decision at all.
Public confidence depends not only on avoiding actual conflicts, but also on avoiding circumstances that create the appearance the outcome was predetermined.
If Florida is serious about reducing red tape, it can’t simply celebrate reform when bills are signed.
It has to defend those reforms when local governments test their limits.
Otherwise, “cutting red tape” becomes just another campaign slogan.
And the bureaucracy wins again.