County officials, private providers and building staff debate single‑trade permit delays and quality checks
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After a public comment from a private provider, RER staff explained county and municipal roles under the private‑provider statute, the 'shot clock' for final certificates and why some permitting closeouts still see delays; UMSA private‑provider use is low, staff said, and agreed to provide a timeline and examples to the committee.
A public comment from Ian Cohen, president and COO of Inspected, prompted extended discussion about single‑trade permits and how private providers and county building officials coordinate.
Cohen told the committee private providers operate across Florida and alleged Miami‑Dade jurisdictions are imposing additional requirements that frustrate statutory intent and cause prolonged permit closeouts. "The only place in all of Florida where this does not work is in Miami," he said, arguing county practice was adding unnecessary delay and cost for contractors and homeowners.
Lourdes Gomez of the county’s Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) responded that the private‑provider statutes set roles for jurisdictions and private providers and that the county had worked with the Board of Rules and Appeals to develop a common county framework to improve predictability. Jamie Gaskin (RER) said the law assigns building officials responsibility for other requirements — zoning, flood and related ordinances — that are outside private providers’ scope and that a county guideline and a statutory 'shot clock' govern the time for building officials to issue final certificates after a private‑provider report.
Edward Rojas, the unincorporated municipal service area building official, said that for most residential single‑trade permits the county offers over‑the‑counter or limited reviews and next‑day inspections, and that UMSA private‑provider utilization is in the single digits. Rojas said site visits are often done at the end of a job as a paperwork verification before closing a permit and that some delays result when county site visits identify discrepancies between the permit paperwork and field conditions.
Commissioners pressed staff for written timelines and examples of typical single‑trade permit workflows and asked RER to investigate whether uniform countywide practices in other municipalities could be improved. RER staff agreed to produce a written breakdown of timelines and examples and to coordinate with the Board of Rules and Appeals on countywide uniformity.
No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting.