By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida
Florida’s cities and counties are facing a new fiscal reality following the passage of Amendment 3. With property tax revenues expected to decline, local officials will have difficult decisions to make about spending, staffing and the size of government.
Here’s one place they should look first: their permitting and regulatory departments.
Across Florida, builders, contractors, developers and homeowners must navigate layers of government review before they can build a house, expand a business or improve an existing property. Building codes, zoning requirements, site plans, environmental reviews, inspections and assorted fees can turn relatively straightforward projects into expensive, time-consuming exercises.
Some of those requirements are essential. Nobody wants unsafe buildings, contaminated drinking water or development that ignores legitimate infrastructure concerns.
But there’s a difference between protecting the public and perpetuating bureaucracy.
At Red Tape Florida, we’ve seen firsthand how government processes can take on lives of their own. Consider Tallahassee’s Midtown Reader, a small independent bookstore seeking a modest expansion. What should have been a relatively straightforward project became entangled in regulatory requirements, including a costly engineering and architectural process and a 10-foot sidewalk requirement. The project ultimately left behind a grassy lot instead of the expansion the owner envisioned.
In Columbia County, Red Tape Florida examined the permitting and inspection costs associated with a Busy Bee development. The county ultimately approved a 90% reduction in both plan-review and inspection fees — raising an obvious question about how those fees were calculated in the first place.
These aren’t arguments against building codes or reasonable development standards. They’re examples of why local governments should periodically examine whether their regulatory requirements, staffing and fees are proportionate to the public benefits they deliver. And with Amendment 3 putting new pressure on local budgets, there’s never been a better time for that examination.
And with local governments facing tighter budgets, that distinction deserves renewed scrutiny.
Reducing unnecessary permitting bureaucracy offers a rare double benefit: smaller, more efficient government and lower costs for housing and economic development.
Consider what happens when a residential project gets bogged down in the approval process. Developers continue paying interest on borrowed money. Contractors face scheduling uncertainty. Land sits idle. Additional engineering work, repeated submissions and administrative fees add to the bill.
Those costs don’t simply disappear. They can ultimately be reflected in the prices paid by homebuyers and renters.
Florida already struggles with housing affordability. Government shouldn’t make the problem worse through avoidable delays and duplicative regulations.
Amendment 3 creates an opportunity for local governments to examine whether their permitting operations are delivering reasonable value for the money.
How many employees are involved in reviewing a typical residential project? How many separate departments must approve essentially the same information? How long does an application sit waiting for action? How much do permitting departments cost to operate, and how much of that expense is supported by fees charged to applicants?
Those are questions every city and county should be able to answer.
The goal shouldn’t be indiscriminate layoffs or weaker safety standards. In fact, eliminating experienced inspectors without improving the underlying process could make delays worse.
Instead, local governments should look for overlapping responsibilities, unnecessary approval steps, outdated regulations and administrative functions that technology or streamlined procedures could replace.
They should also examine whether permitting fees reflect the actual cost of providing the service or have become another way to finance government operations.
There’s an important distinction here: Cutting fees without reducing administrative costs simply shifts the burden to someone else. Genuine reform means reducing the cost of the process itself.
Local officials will undoubtedly argue that Amendment 3 leaves them with fewer resources to provide essential services. That’s a legitimate concern, particularly for public safety and infrastructure.
But it also makes an honest examination of government operations more important, not less.
Florida homeowners were promised property tax relief. The response shouldn’t automatically be higher fees, higher millage rates or new charges on businesses and development.
Before asking taxpayers to make up the difference, local governments should demonstrate that they’ve examined their own operations for savings.
The permit counter would be a good place to start.