Can a Florida county charge an extra plan-review or inspection fee just because a new home has a fire sprinkler system?

Plain-English summary

A Polk County developer chose to install fire sprinklers in new one- and two-family homes instead of meeting other fire-protection requirements, an option section 633.025(9) allows. The county asked whether it could charge a plan-review fee for a fire inspector to review and inspect those sprinkler systems. Attorney General Bill McCollum concluded that it could not.

Section 633.025(9) says a local jurisdiction or utility "may not charge any additional fee, above what is charged to a non-fire sprinklered dwelling, on the basis that a one- or two-family dwelling unit is protected by a fire sprinkler system." The county pointed to section 633.551, which generally preserves local power to regulate contractor work through permits, fees, and inspections. The AG resolved the tension with two standard rules of statutory construction: a more specific statute controls over a general one, and a later enactment prevails over an earlier one. Section 633.025(9)'s fee bar was both more specific and newer (added in 2005), so it operated as an exception to the county's general fee authority. The bottom line: a county may inspect, but it cannot tack on an extra charge simply because the home has sprinklers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2009. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Section 633.025 made the Florida Fire Prevention Code and the Life Safety Code the minimum fire-safety standards for local governments with fire-safety responsibilities. Subsection (9) exempts newly constructed one- and two-family dwellings from the Life Safety Code, lets local governments permit sprinkler protection in lieu of other fire-protection development requirements, and bars any extra fee charged because such a home has sprinklers.

Section 633.551(1) cuts the other way at a general level, preserving a municipality's or county's power to "regulate the quality and character of work performed by contractors through a system of permits, fees, and inspections." The opinion treated this as the general rule and section 633.025(9) as the specific carve-out. The AG noted the legislative timeline: the no-extra-fee language was added to section 633.025(9) in 2005 by chapter 2005-147, Laws of Florida, while section 633.551 had been enacted in 1975 by chapter 75-240 and left unchanged. That made section 633.025(9) both the more specific and the later expression of legislative will.

For the controlling canons, the AG cited McKendry v. State (a specific statute controls over a general one), Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority (a special act prevails over a conflicting general law), and Florida Association of Counties v. Department of Administration (the later expression prevails). Applied together, those rules meant the fee bar in section 633.025(9) won.

Common questions

Q: Could the county still inspect the sprinkler systems?
A: Yes. The opinion did not bar inspection. It barred charging an extra plan-review or inspection fee above what a comparable non-sprinklered home would pay, when the only reason for the charge was the presence of sprinklers.

Q: Why did the specific statute beat the general one?
A: The AG applied two construction rules: a specific statute controls over a general statute on the same subject, and a later-enacted statute prevails over an earlier one. Section 633.025(9) was both more specific and newer (2005) than section 633.551 (1975).

Q: Who did the fee bar apply to?
A: By its terms, section 633.025(9) applied to a "local jurisdiction or utility," so both local governments and utilities were covered.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• § 633.025(9), Fla. Stat. (no additional fee for fire-sprinklered one- or two-family dwellings)
• § 633.551(1), Fla. Stat. (local authority to permit, fee, and inspect contractor work)
• Ch. 2005-147, § 17, Laws of Fla. (added the no-additional-fee language in 2005)
• Ch. 75-240, § 16, Laws of Fla. (1975) (enacted § 633.551)

Cases:

• McKendry v. State, 641 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1994), specific statute controls over a general one
• Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority, 461 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1984), special act prevails over a conflicting general law
• Florida Association of Counties, Inc. v. Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 580 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), later expression prevails over the former

Source

• Landing page: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/ag-opinions/counties-inspection-fee-for-fire-sprinkler-systems
• Original PDF: https://www.myfloridalegal.com/print/pdf/node/1781

Original opinion text

Mr. Michael S. Craig

County Attorney

Polk County

Post Office Box 9005

Bartow, Florida 33831-9005

RE: FIRE PREVENTION CODE – COUNTIES – BUILDING INSPECTIONS – FEES – authority of county to impose additional review and inspection fees for single and two-family dwellings with fire sprinkler protection. ss. 633.025 and 633.551, Fla. Stat.

Dear Mr. Craig:

You ask the following question:

May a county charge a plans review fee for a fire inspector to review plans and inspect installation of a fire sprinkler system in a one-family or two-family dwelling to ensure compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code when the county has permitted fire sprinkler protection pursuant to section 633.025(9), Florida Statutes?

In sum:

Section 633.025(9), Florida Statutes, would preclude a local government from charging an additional fee for plans review or inspection, above what is charged to a non-fire sprinklered dwelling, because a one-family or two-family dwelling is protected by a fire sprinkler.

You state that a local developer, pursuant to section 633.025(9), Florida Statutes, has opted to require fire sprinkler protection within a development, in lieu of installing other required fire protection. This section contains language that appears to prohibit a local jurisdiction or utility from charging any additional fee for plan review or inspection, above what is charged for dwellings without sprinklers, on the basis that a one-family or two-family dwelling has a fire sprinkler system.

Section 633.551, Florida Statutes, recognizes the authority of local governments to regulate the quality and character of work performed by contractors. It specifically states:

"Nothing in this act limits the power of a municipality or county to regulate the quality and character of work performed by contractors through a system of permits, fees, and inspections which are designed to secure compliance with, and aid in the implementation of, state and local building laws or to enforce other local laws for the protection of the public health and safety."[1]

Section 633.025, Florida Statutes, establishes the Florida Fire Prevention code and the Life Safety Code adopted by the State Fire Marshal as the minimum fire safety standards for each municipality, county or special district with fire safety responsibilities.[2] Subsection (9) of the law states:

"The provisions of the Life Safety Code shall not apply to newly constructed one-family and two-family dwellings. However, fire sprinkler protection may be permitted by local government in lieu of other fire protection-related development requirements for such structures. . . . In addition, a local jurisdiction or utility may not charge any additional fee, above what is charged to a non-fire sprinklered dwelling, on the basis that a one- or two-family dwelling unit is protected by a fire sprinkler system." (e.s.)

As a more specific law enacted at a later date,[3] the provision in section 633.025(9), Florida Statutes, would prevail and act as an exception to the more general grant of authority in section 633.551(1), Florida Statutes.[4]

Thus, section 633.025(9), Florida Statutes, would preclude a county from charging a plans review fee for a fire inspector to review plans and inspect the installation of a fire sprinkler system in a one-family or two-family dwelling to ensure compliance with the Florida Fire Prevention Code, when no such fee is charged for a dwelling that does not have fire sprinkler protection. Accordingly, a county may not charge an additional fee to review plans and inspect installation of a fire sprinkler system in a one-family or two-family dwelling.

Sincerely,

Bill McCollum

Attorney General

BM/tals

[1] Section 633.551(1), Fla. Stat. Subsection (2) states:

"Nothing in this act limits the power of a municipality or county to adopt any system of permits requiring submission to and approval by the municipality or county of plans and specifications for work to be performed by contractors before commencement of the work, except that no municipality or county shall require a fire protection system contractor’s shop drawings to be sealed by a professional engineer."

[2] See s. 633.025(1), Fla. Stat.

[3] The language in s. 633.025(9), Fla. Stat., precluding the charge of additional fees on the basis that a one-family or two-family dwelling is protected by a fire sprinkler system was added to the section in 2005 by s. 17, Ch. 2005-147, Laws of Fla.; s. 633.551, Fla. Stat., was enacted by s. 16, Ch. 75-240, Laws of Fla. (1975), and remains unchanged.

[4] See McKendry v. State, 641 So. 2d 45 (Fla. 1994) (specific statute covering a particular subject area will control over a statute covering the same and other subjects in more general terms); Rowe v. Pinellas Sports Authority, 461 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1984) (when a special act and a general law conflict, the special act will prevail); Florida Association of Counties, Inc. v. Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 580 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), approved, 595 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1992) (general rule is that in cases of conflicting statutory provisions, latter expression will prevail over former).