Incomplete and inconsistent local reporting has left Florida without a complete statewide accounting of milestone inspections for condominium and cooperative buildings subject to the state’s structural inspection requirements, according to a new report from the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA).

OPPAGA identified 389 local enforcement agency jurisdictions across Florida, but the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) received milestone inspection data from only 277 jurisdictions in 2024 and 250 in 2025, representing response rates of 71 percent and 64 percent, respectively. Even with those limitations, local building officials reported 8,736 completed phase one inspections and 1,575 completed phase two inspections across the two years. Phase one inspections consist of a visual review of a building’s major structural components, while phase two inspections are required when the initial examination identifies substantial structural deterioration. The legislative oversight office also found several weaknesses in DBPR’s data collection process, including a lack of verification that reports were submitted by the building officials responsible for each jurisdiction. OPPAGA identified submissions from licensed building code administrators who were not serving as the relevant local official.

 

The reporting form further complicated the process by failing to clearly distinguish between unincorporated county areas, municipalities and combined jurisdictions. According to OPPAGA, those omissions led to incorrectly identified jurisdictions and made it more difficult to determine which areas had submitted milestone inspection data.

Other problems involved the scope and timing of submissions. The form did not limit entries to condominium and cooperative buildings, leading some jurisdictions to include other properties, such as mixed-use buildings. DBPR also used the same form for multiple reporting years, and OPPAGA identified and corrected one case in which a building official reported milestone inspection data for the incorrect year.

The report found similar inconsistencies in how local officials classified buildings as unsafe or uninhabitable. State law requires those buildings to be reported but does not define either term for purposes of the milestone inspection program. While the Florida Building Code defines “unsafe,” it does not define “uninhabitable,” leaving officials to rely on the code, local ordinances or the judgment of the inspecting engineer.

OPPAGA recommended that DBPR issue clearer instructions and provide additional training, including a webinar or guided tutorial. DBPR said it is developing written guidance and recorded virtual training for the 2026 reporting cycle while revising the submission process to reduce future reporting errors.