Enforcement of the Florida Building Code:
HB 1477 would revise Florida law governing how local governments collect and use fees for enforcing the Florida Building Code. The bill keeps the general rule that building-code enforcement fees, fines, and related investment earnings must be used only for code-enforcement activities, but it adds a new requirement that any excess funds a local government is not allowed to carry forward must be spent on necessary services or repairs to the local stormwater management system. If a local government has such excess funds, the bill bars the use of state funds for stormwater improvements and also restricts access to state money through local funding initiative requests to the legislative delegation.
The bill also creates additional limits and conditions on local governments that seek state funding. A local government would be ineligible for additional state funds if it has been audited by a legislative committee within a specified period after requesting funds or if it fails to submit the required affirmation in its local funding initiative request. Legislative committees would be required to report affected local governments to legislative leaders and appropriations chairs. The bill further preserves and clarifies restrictions on what building-code enforcement fees may pay for, including prohibitions on using those fees for general government functions, unrelated ordinances, or certain extra charges tied to licensure and workers’ compensation documentation.
HB 1477 would amend s. 553.80, Florida Statutes, by tightening the accounting and permissible-use rules for local building-code enforcement revenues and by linking those revenues to stormwater-related spending when excess balances exist. It would also add new eligibility restrictions for state funding requests and create a private right of action allowing permit holders or qualifying associations to sue a local government to enforce the fee-use restrictions. Local enforcement agencies, independent districts, and special districts would face clearer limits on fee collection and on the types of costs that may be charged to permit applicants.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to indicate broad support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears designed to appeal to proponents of tighter local fiscal controls and fee accountability, while likely drawing concern from local governments that would lose discretion over excess building-code fee balances and face new state-funding penalties. The bill ultimately died in the Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s mandate that excess building-code fee revenues be redirected to stormwater management, the prohibition on using state funds for those improvements when local excess funds exist, and the new restrictions on eligibility for state funding through local legislative initiatives. Local governments may object to the loss of flexibility over accumulated fee balances and to the possibility of litigation by permit holders or associations enforcing the statute. Supporters would likely emphasize fee accountability, preventing cross-subsidization of unrelated local activities, and ensuring that local fee revenue is used for infrastructure and service needs tied to the permitting and development process.