Short answer: On November 9, 2026, the Florida Attorney General's office issued a letter opinion answering seven questions about what local building departments can require from private providers under Section 553.791, Florida Statutes. The opinion concludes that the Florida Building Commission's Notice to Building Official (NTBO) is enough to show the owner's authorization, that a city cannot require its own form, notarization, or wet-ink signatures, that inspectors do not have to hand over photo ID or home addresses to register, and that a registered private provider does not have to resubmit insurance and inspector paperwork with every permit.
This page summarizes the opinion question by question, with the statutory subsection behind each answer, so contractors, owners, and building departments can check a specific requirement against it.
Read the letter itself: Florida Attorney General opinion to Representative Giallombardo, November 9, 2026 (PDF, 4 pages).
Key facts
- Date issued: November 9, 2026
- Issued by: Office of the Attorney General of Florida, Opinions Division, signed by Greg Slemp, Deputy Attorney General, Legal Counsel
- Addressed to: Representative Mike Giallombardo, Florida House of Representatives, District 79, in response to his letter of September 14, 2026
- Statute interpreted: Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, as amended by HB 803 (Chapter 2026-63, effective July 1, 2026)
- Subject: Notices to Building Official, fee owner authorization, and private provider registration
- Legal weight: Advisory. Attorney General opinions are persuasive authority but are not binding on courts. The opinion notes that no case law exists yet on these questions.
The seven questions and the answers
| Question asked | Attorney General's answer | Statute cited |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Can a local government reject the Commission's NTBO because it is not "explicit" written authorization to use a private provider? | No. The NTBO satisfies the statute. Adding the word "explicit" to the law in 2026 did not change that. | 553.791(2)(a), (5) |
| 2. If the fee owner signs the NTBO, is a separate owner authorization or a city-specific form also required? | No. An owner-signed NTBO needs nothing more. If the contractor signs instead, a separate letter from the owner authorizing the contractor to sign is sufficient. The statute does not require a city-specific form. | 553.791(2)(a), (5) |
| 3. Can a local government reject the NTBO because the private provider lists all of its qualifiers on the form? | No. The form may list one, several, or all qualifiers. Nothing in the statute prohibits listing all of them. | 553.791(5) |
| 4. Does the owner's authorization have to describe the contractor's scope of work? | No. The authorization only acknowledges that a private provider is being used. "Services to be performed" means whether the provider is doing inspections or plans review, not the project's full scope. | 553.791(2)(a), (5)(a), (19)(a) |
| 5. Can a local government require wet-ink signatures, an oath, or notarization? | No. The Legislature set no method of execution, and the NTBO may be submitted electronically. Requiring notarization or wet ink is a more stringent local requirement, which the statute prohibits. | 553.791(1)(h), (4), (19)(a) |
| 6. When registering, does a duly authorized representative have to submit photo ID, a home address, a date of birth, or payroll details? | No. Registration calls for the private provider or firm's contact information and proof of licensure and insurance. The statute places no such requirement on a duly authorized representative. | 553.791(4)(a) |
| 7. Does a registered private provider have to resubmit representative information and its certificate of insurance with each NTBO? | No. That information lives in the local registry. A local enforcement agency may not require licensure or insurance verification beyond what registration requires. | 553.791(4), (11) |
What each answer means in practice
The Commission's NTBO is the form. Cities cannot substitute their own.
HB 803 added the word "explicit" to the requirement that a fee owner authorize the use of a private provider. Some building departments read that word as a license to demand a new local authorization form on every permit. The opinion rejects that reading. The "explicit" language is about the owner authorizing a contractor to choose a private provider on the owner's behalf. It did not create a new notice requirement.
The practical rule has two branches:
- Owner signs the NTBO: nothing else is needed to show authorization.
- Contractor signs the NTBO: attach a letter from the owner authorizing the contractor to sign for the owner. That letter satisfies the "explicit" written authorization requirement.
The NTBO is the form adopted by the Florida Building Commission under Rule 61G20-2.005, Florida Administrative Code. A department may not reject it in favor of a local version.
Listing every qualifier is allowed
Firms that work statewide often list all of their qualifiers on the NTBO so that any of them can cover a project. The opinion confirms a department cannot deny the notice for that reason. Under subsection (5), the notice has to identify the services to be performed and the name, contact information, and credentials of each private provider.
No scope of work, no restated contract
The owner's authorization is an acknowledgment that a private provider is handling inspections or plans review. It is not a restatement of the construction contract. The opinion reads "services to be performed" narrowly: the notice says whether the provider is performing building code inspections, plans review, or both. A department that demands a full scope description is adding a requirement the statute does not contain.
No notary, no wet ink, electronic submission is fine
The statute does not prescribe how the authorization or the NTBO is signed. That means no original wet-ink signature, no oath, and no notary stamp can be required, and the notice may be submitted electronically. The opinion ties this to subsection (19)(a), which bars local governments from adopting or enforcing rules, ordinances, policies, or procedures more stringent than the statute.
Registration covers the firm, not the inspector's personal records
Under subsection (4)(a), a private provider or private provider firm registers by supplying contact information and proof that it meets the licensure and insurance requirements. The opinion concludes that a duly authorized representative is not required to submit personal identification information such as photo identification, a residential address, or a date of birth, or payroll details to prove employment.
Register once. Do not resubmit with every permit.
Once a provider is registered, its certificate of insurance and license verification sit in the local registry, which the statute requires to be available electronically. The opinion finds nothing in the statute that requires that information to be reproduced with every NTBO or permit application, and it points to subsection (11), which stops a local enforcement agency from asking for licensure or insurance verification beyond what registration requires.
What the opinion does not do
- It is not a court ruling. It is the Attorney General's office's reading of the statute. A department that disagrees is not automatically bound by it, although its own counsel now has to account for it.
- It does not address fees or duplicate inspections. Those were covered in a separate Attorney General letter issued in July 2026. See our summary of the July 2026 opinion.
- It does not change the notice deadline. The owner or contractor still has to notify the building official in writing at permit application, or by 2 p.m. local time two business days before the first scheduled inspection.
- It does not remove registration. Private providers and firms still have to register with each local enforcement agency before contracting to provide services there, and keep that registration current.
How it fits with the July 2026 opinion and HB 803
Florida now has two 2026 Attorney General letters interpreting the rewritten private provider statute:
| Opinion | Requested by | What it covers |
|---|---|---|
| July 16, 2026 | Rep. Chip LaMarca | Duplicate inspections as a condition of permit closeout, more stringent local policies, permit fee reductions, and refunds of fees collected beyond what the statute allows |
| November 9, 2026 | Rep. Mike Giallombardo | NTBO sufficiency, fee owner authorization, qualifiers, signatures and notarization, registration requirements, and per-permit resubmittals |
Read together, they describe the same principle from two directions. The statute is a statewide standard, and subsection (19)(a) prevents a local government from adding paperwork, steps, or fees on top of it. For background on the law itself, see Florida Statute 553.791 Explained and What HB 803 Means for Florida Developers and Builders.
What to do if a building department asks for more
- Submit the Commission's NTBO. Have the fee owner sign it where possible. If the contractor signs, attach a one-paragraph owner letter authorizing the contractor to sign.
- Ask for the statutory basis. If the department asks for a local form, a notary stamp, a scope of work, or inspector ID, ask in writing which subsection of 553.791 requires it.
- Cite the opinion by date and recipient. Refer to the Florida Attorney General's letter opinion to Representative Mike Giallombardo dated November 9, 2026, and to subsections (19)(a) and (11).
- Confirm your registration is current. The protection against per-permit resubmittals applies to providers already registered with that department. Registration must be updated within five business days of a change in contact information, licensure, or insurance.
- Keep the record. Save the rejection notice and your response. If a department still refuses a permit, that paper trail is what an attorney, the Florida Building Commission, or your legislator will need.
Frequently asked questions
Does a Florida Notice to Building Official have to be notarized?
No. According to the Attorney General's November 9, 2026 opinion, Section 553.791 sets no method of execution, so a local government cannot require notarization, an oath, or original wet-ink signatures. The NTBO can be signed and submitted electronically.
Can a city or county require its own private provider authorization form?
No. The opinion concludes that the Florida Building Commission's NTBO satisfies the statute and that the statute does not require a city-specific form to be signed as explicit authorization.
Who has to sign the NTBO, the owner or the contractor?
Either one may sign. If the fee owner signs, no further authorization is needed. If the contractor signs, a separate letter from the fee owner authorizing the contractor to sign on the owner's behalf satisfies the explicit written authorization requirement in subsection (2)(a).
Can a building department require a private provider's inspectors to submit a driver's license or home address?
No. The opinion states that a duly authorized representative is not required to submit photo identification, a residential address, a date of birth, or payroll details when a private provider registers under subsection (4).
Do I have to send a certificate of insurance with every permit application?
Not if the private provider is already registered with that building department. The opinion concludes that a registered provider is not required to resubmit representative information and its certificate of insurance with each NTBO, citing subsections (4) and (11).
Is a Florida Attorney General opinion binding on a building department?
No. Attorney General opinions are advisory. Courts treat them as persuasive, and local government attorneys generally give them significant weight, but only a court decision or a change to the statute is binding.
Does the owner's authorization have to list the scope of work?
No. The opinion reads the statute to require only an acknowledgment that a private provider is being used for inspections or plans review. Requiring the scope of the contractor's work would be a more stringent requirement prohibited by subsection (19)(a).
Where Tew & Taylor fits
Tew & Taylor has operated as a Florida private provider since 2008 and has completed more than 100,000 inspections across 320 Florida jurisdictions. We handle registration, NTBOs, plan review, and inspections under Section 553.791 from offices in West Palm Beach, St. Petersburg, Orlando, and Jacksonville, and we deal with these paperwork questions at building department counters every day.
If a department has rejected your NTBO or is asking for documents the statute does not require, contact our team or call 561-366-0100.
Sources: Letter opinion from the Office of the Attorney General of Florida, Opinions Division, to Representative Mike Giallombardo (November 9, 2026); F.S. §553.791 (2026); HB 803 (2026); Florida Attorney General Opinions. This article is a summary for general information and is not legal advice. For a dispute on a specific permit, consult a Florida attorney.
NTBO Rejected? Talk to a Private Provider That Handles It Daily
Tew & Taylor provides private inspections, plan review, and permitting support across Florida under F.S. §553.791.
Get Started →