Mike Silvers, CPRC, Owner, Silvers Systems Inc. and FRSA Technical Director - April 2026
One doesn’t have to look very far to see the many ways that the Florida Building Code (FBC) has been heralded as responsible for large improvements in the storm resistance of Florida structures. It is at the heart of control over ever-increasing property insurance premiums. Its provisions have helped keep thousands in their homes and places of business post hurricane.
Implementing all the changes since the FBC’s inception has been an enormous task for the construction industry as a whole and the roofing industry in particular. For those who are unfamiliar, the code changes every three years (a triennial cycle). With each new edition, many modifications are submitted to the Florida Building Commission for consideration. Many of these modifications are made in an effort to improve the resiliency of our structures. Florida Statutes prohibit any weakening of the code's windresistance provisions. So, with each new edition, the code can only get stronger in terms of wind-resistance. It has and the trend is likely to continue.
Producing a stronger code, however, is just words without the code’s requirements being properly applied when building, altering or repairing a structure. Through contractor licensure, permitting, inspections and training, Florida has done a good job of accomplishing this. Many conscientious contractors follow the code because they have an interest in doing things the right way regardless of enforcement. FRSA is fortunate that most of our members take this approach. However, we know there are many who present themselves as legitimate contractors but don’t hold themselves to this standard. The reality of failing an inspection that could result in a new roof being replaced, at the contractor’s expense, is a big part of getting this type of contractor to pay any attention to the code’s requirements and the quality of his or her work.
Losing the ability to pull permits in a jurisdiction due to previous poor work or other non-compliance can also be an incentive. If there isn’t any permitting or code enforcement – or fear of it – then only the conscientious contractors will comply. Eventually, it will leave only those, as mom use to say, “with larceny in their hearts” with a huge cost advantage, due to noncompliance of code provisions and thereby eventually driving someone following the rules out of business, leaving only the unscrupulous.
Make no mistake, a well-functioning building department is not only critical to maintaining the advances accomplished through the code but also in trying to maintain a somewhat level playing field for all contractors. Without permitting, who will confirm licensure? Building officials are a major part of the improvements that have been made.
So, why am I addressing this now? Unfortunately, there are some well-intentioned movements that could upset the balance of regulation and implementation that have made our work in the code so successful. A lot of new mandates have been and are being handed to Florida’s building departments. Think no further than the milestone inspections programs
implemented after the Surfside building collapse. Or new requirements to issue permits in shorter time frames than previously required. Many of these are good improvements and can be helpful but, as we all know, it is hard to do more with less.
Can permit fees alone support our local building departments? There are now calls for a statewide uniform building permit form that, while admirable, will require reconfiguring most building departments permitting computer software as well as significant staff training. Funding for local government appears to be undergoing significant changes. As these changes
are made, we need to keep in mind that funding our building departments is critical if we want to continue the implementation of the many important code provisions that so many have touted.
At the time of this writing, Florida’s legislature is in session. A bill SB 1234/ HB 803 has gotten legs and will probably have been passed and possibly adopted by the time you’re reading this. The bill has a lot of things that are very developer friendly, which, for the most part, we support but this language may present some challenges not only for licensed contractors but for building departments as well. The portion that most concerns me is below. On its surface, this may appear helpful but stick with me after reading the section below.
(g) 1. A local government that issues building permits may not require an owner of a single-family dwelling or the owner’s contractor to obtain a building permit to perform any work that is valued at less than $7,500 on the owner’s property. However, a local government may require a building permit for any electrical, plumbing, structural, mechanical or gas work performed on property containing a single-family dwelling regardless of the value of the work. A construction project may not be divided into more than one project for the purpose of evading the requirements of this section.
2. For any work performed by a person other than the property owner under the exemption in subparagraph
1. the person performing the work must file a notice of permit exemption with the local enforcement agency that includes the name and license number of the person or entity hired to perform the work, the scope of the work performed, the property address at which the work was performed and the value of such work as proof that such work complies with subparagraph 1. A notice of permit exemption must be filed within 30 days after the date the work begins. A notice is not required for work performed personally by the property owner. A local government has no legal duty to the owner, contractor or successors or assigns.
So, if adopted, no permit or inspections can be required for most work on a single-family dwelling where the value is less than $7,500. Why do I foresee the price for smaller residential reroofs will become $7,499? This price may be sufficient for reroofs on small homes but could easily be used to exempt larger projects. Do we think it is above those who want to
skirt the permitting and code requirements by using this exemption as a hack on larger projects by hiding additional payments or costs hidden from view? What can the building department do when seeing a reroof being performed and when requesting a permit, those doing the work just say: "It’s less than $7,500, go away, permits and inspections aren’t required."
Building departments aren’t supposed to require contracts or job costs to establish permit fees, which is something we agree with. But with this new permit exemption, how can they confirm the price? If they do see a contract, the previously described deception could easily make it irrelevant. This will be a gift for those who wish to work without proper licensure. How does the bill address this? A contractor is supposed to file a permit exemption within 30 days after the date the work begins. Yes, that’s right, after work begins. Why would I be skeptical that filing the exemption would actually occur?
We attempted to have reroofing added to the type of work that would still need a permit but were told that roofing was already included in the “electrical, plumbing, structural, mechanical or gas work” language. I was perplexed but was told that the legislature was assured that roofing was structural. That struck me as odd because for decades, before the renailing of sheathing language was added to the definition of a roofing contractor, we were consistently told roofing contractors couldn’t do any structural work but now, somehow, all roofing is structural. The same applied to roof-to-wall connections when that was added. Opponents argued that it was structural, which it is but was specifically limited when it was
added to our scope to allow it to be done by roofing contractors. So now, it will have to be determined if roof coverings and systems are in fact structural. That decision could have far reaching consequences no matter which way it falls. Something tells me that many building officials will not see roof coverings as structural, so they may decide that they do not require permits and inspections on these jobs. You are supposed to be licensed to do this exempted work but without permits and inspections who will check? Hopefully, we will eventually get it added in future sessions. By making that simple change, repairs of less than $7,500 would be allowed under the exemption, while full reroofs (a term that covers roof replacement and recovering defined in the code) would still require a permit.
Our legislative team does a great job for us but this one got rolling like a boulder heading downhill: tough to stop or reason with. We will continue to monitor this development and try to apply a measure of reason to its interpretation. This may lead to some detrimental unintended consequences.
Note: “those with larceny in their hearts” refers to individuals harboring a deep-seated inclination toward dishonesty, greed and the theft of other people's property or wellbeing. Mom, the original AI (Actual Intelligence), was pretty wise!
Mike Silvers, CPRC is Owner of Silvers Systems Inc. and is consulting with FRSA as Director of Technical Services. Mike is an FRSA Past President, Life Member and Campanella Award recipient and brings over 50 years of industry knowledge and experience to FRSA’s team.