.. .. .. .. .. ..4
Clayton C. Curtis, Chairman
Robert J. Spence, Vice-Chairman
Ralph W. KlIuge, Secretary-Treasurer
Jack Durrance Ralph Kluge
CITY OF ALACHUA'I Robert H. Cato Glenn DuBois
Clayton C. Curtis CTOFGIEVLEJames G. Richardson Samuel N. Holloway
Carnell C. Henderson CTOFHW ORE Robert J. Spence
CITY OF HIGH SPRINGS
E. G. Cann E. H. Petteway
North Central Florida John M. Champion#
Health Planning Council .
Governor's Council on WyadCitn r
Criminal Justice Region 11Wyan lftn r
Alachua County C. 0. Morgan
City of Gainesville Norman J. Bowman
G. Alan HardinS
Citizen Participation W. T. Coram
Charles F. Justice Executive Director
Philip J. Hughey Assistant Director
Alan L. Csontos Environmental Planner
Roy E. Brewer Regional Planner6
Charles L. Kiester Regional Planner
Jan E. McGee Health Planning Coordinator
Tommie M. George Executive Secretary
Marilyn Crumley Secretary 11
Ruby Marshall Bookkeeper
Terry Trussell Graphics Coordinator N
Trevor D. Splane Planning Technician
Mark Druash Planning Technician
HOUSING ,1974The preparation of this report was financed in part through a comprehensive planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council
Five Southwest Second Place Gainesville, Florida 32601
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2. 3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Housing, 1974 6.
7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept.
See #9 Below N-NCFRPC-74-004
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council 1
5 Southwest Second Place 11. Contract/Grant No
Gainesville, Florida 32601 CPA-FL-04-29-1036
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type ot Report & Period
Department of Housing and Urban Development FINAL
661 Riverside Drive
Jacksonville, Florida 32204 14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts This report is preparatory to the development of a housing plan for Alachua County and municipalities. The study focuses on two separate, though highly related subject areas affecting the quantity and quality of housing within the county. The first is concerned with identifying those existing and proposed programs, federal, state and local, which provide viable alternatives to the jurisdictions of Alachua County for the purpose of increasing the quantity & improving the quality of housing for their citizens. The second is concerned with identifying any obstacles to the development of housing that are created by inconsistencies and/or inadequacies in the adoption and enforcement of housing-related codes within the county. The report recommends that a housing committee, having representatives from each of the political jurisdictions, be established for the purpose of A~i7e1opnn~r An ar-ea-wide- hollping plan17. key Words and'Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
& 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
S HOUSING (federal, state, local aid programs; housing-related codes and code enforcement).
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement Available to the public from 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages the North Central Florida Regional Planning UNCLASSIFIED 80
20. Security Class (This 122. Price
Council, 5 S.W. 2nd Place, Gainesville, Page C 2E 1 I -A;1 "7L UNCLASSIFIED
F OR h' S-35 R E V ,-3-72-)- U SC OM'M-O C 14952-P72'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . .. . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . .
I/ONE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
Regional Housing Program
Purpose and objectives of the Study
organization of the Study
I/TWO CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 9
Housing Assistance Programs Codes and Code Enforcement
II/THREE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS . . . . 17
Summary of Housing Assistance Programs
Conclusions and Recommendations
III/FOUR HOUSING AND HOUSING RELATED CODES . . . 37
Codes and Code Enforcement: Alachua
County and Municipalities
Codes and Code Enforcement: Conclusions
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Twenty-five years have passed since the United States established at the national level the policy goal of "a decent home and suitable living environment for every American family". Whereas the Federal Government had first entered the housing picture nearly 20 years earlier, the 1949 Housing Act establishing this policy set the tone for increasing direct federal involvement in the area of housing and urban development.
Although hampered somewhat by legislative requirements and the proliferation of programs, policies and differing procedures, in a report to the President in 1968, a presidential committee on urban housing stated that progress toward the housing goal had been achieved through the implementation of federally-sponsored housing programs which evolved from this and other later-adopted housing acts. The programs which evolved from these housing acts saw increasing attempts to reach the core of the problem through a multi-faceted approach of rehabilitating people as well as the physical structures and neighborhood environments in which they live. The commission concluded that the solution to the housing problem is not just one of supplying adequate numbers of low- and medium-cost housing to those families that can afford them, but the bridging of the income gap for those families unable to afford even the lowest-cost housing that can be built. (A Decent Home, 1968, pp. 47-73.)
A major change in the role of the Federal Government concerning housing and urban development is presently in progress.
The federally-sponsored categorical grant programs which gave us such terms as "public housing" and "urban renewal" are now being phased out in favor of a more decentralized approach--one which will return the initiative to state and local governments for solving their own housing and community development problems. While more will be said about this later, this approach proposes "block" grants of federal monies to state and local governments for their "discretionary" use. Regardless the program, its title or its approach, the basic housing problems as described in the corrLmission's report still remain to be solved.
REGIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM
The North Central Florida Regional Planning Council was created by Acts of Resolution of the Alachua County Commission and the Gainesville City Commission in December of 1968. This action was prompted by the growing realization that problems associated with urbanization of an area have no respect for political boundaries.
As pointed out in the Council's Initial Housing Element (N.C.F.R.P.C., 1971), housing and housing-related problems do not begin and end at local jurisdictional boundaries; therefore, special insight to the problems may be gained by studying them at the regional level. The Initial Housing Element began the Council's investigation into the housing situation within all units of political jurisdiction in Alachua County. After establishing a preliminary listing of existing housing conditions and a ranking of problems which have precipitated unsound housing in the area, the
study issued a statement of objectives to improve housing quality and established a five year annual work program in order to meet these objectives.
The Initial Housing Element also recognized the past and on-going efforts of the communities in solving their individual housing problems. The results of their earlier efforts were shown to have had a substantial impact on the overall level of housing throughout the county by later, more detailed studies prepared by the Council. Nevertheless, while progress has continued to be made on the housing front, not every family in Alachua County can yet be considered as residing in a decent home.
As prescribed by the adopted work program, the second year study completed by the Council analyzed in detail existing housing conditions by geographic breakdown throughout the county. (N.C.F.R.P.C., Housing Conditions, 1972). As a result of its investigation, the Council found some disparity in the relative percentages of substandard housing based upon location; that is, the smaller communities grouped as a whole had the highest percentage of total housing considered either deteriorated or dilapidated (54.7 percent), while the unincorporated area had the lowest (16.6 percent). A third geographic unit for which data was summarized is the Gainesville Urban Area. This area was found to contain 37.2 percent of total residential structures considered deteriorating or dilapidated. However, the rating method utilized for this area differed from that used for the other two areas, and mobile homes were not included in the results; therefore, a strict percentage comparison is not appropriate. Nevertheless, the study not only provided data establishing the general magnitude of the housing problem in Alachua County,
hut also the areas where, on a relative basis, the problems seer, to be centered.
Armed with data depicting total numbers and conditions of the existing housing supply in Alachua County, a third housing element undertaken by the Council and published in 1973 focused on housing needs, existing and projected, for each of the jurisdictions of local government in Alachua County. (N.C.F.R.P.C., Housing, 1973). Utilizing data and conclusions from previous housing and planning studies completed by the Council and the Department of Community Development, City of Gainesville, this study also projected costs of construction for new housing and analyzed the capabilities of consumers to purchase housing through 1985. This element concluded with a general discussion concerning site location criteria and the physical, economic, and political constraints affecting types, densities, and locations of housing developments.
This brings us to the present element--one which can be considered as completing the initial research portion of the regional housing program. Except for the updating of information contained in the studies completed to-date, beginning next year the regional housing program in Alachua County will focus on the establishment and implementation of a housing plan.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
With the nature and magnitude of the housing problem established by the studies discussed above, the purpose of this element is to lay the groundwork for next year's preparation and adoption of a housing plan for Alachua County and communities. To accomplish this purpose, this study focuses on two separate, though highly related subject areas affecting the adequate supply and condition of housing units in the area. The two areas of consideration can best be phrased in terms of their objectives.
The first objective of this report is to identify and examine existing and proposed programs, federal, state and local, available to the jurisdictions of Alachua County for the purpose of increasing the quantity and improving the quality of housing for their citizens. An analysis of this nature is especially important at this time due to the recent cutbacks in federal involvement in housing programs. Although new replacement programs are presently being prepared by both the Administration and the Congress, the form and nature of federal involvement will differ substantially from what has been done in the past. Also, the State of Florida has recently enacted several housing assistance programs, and a number of local governments are initiating housing programs on their own. Each of these programs are examined, existing and proposed, and recommendations concerning their possible role in the development of a housing plan are made.
The second objective of this report is to identify any obstacles to the development of housing that are created by inconsistencies and/or inadequacies concerning the enforcement of housing and housing-related codes within the
jurisdictions of Alachua County. Obstacles ( develop when developers are faced with differing standards and requirements as they mcve from one political jurisdiction to another for the purpose of constructing housing units. Unnecessar.A differences in standards can inhibit easy movement and, therefore, increase per unit costs to the consumer. Such inconsistencies usually develop more through oversight than intent on the part of the communities. This report examines the existing situation in Alachua County and municipalities, and makes recommendations concerning the establishment of uniform standards throughout the county.
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter Two provides a summary of the major conclusions and recommendations of the study. These two chapters complete Part I of the report.
Parts II and III, containing Chapters Three and Four respectively, are concerned with the two major objectives of the study. Part II, Chapter Three examines those housing assistance programs which are available to the jurisdictions of Alachua County for meeting their housing needs. As indicated above, the purpose of this section is to provide a discussion of alternative housing programs for possible inclusion into next year's development of a housing plan.
Part III, Chapter Four is concerned with housing and housingrelated codes. Essentially this section studies the need for and feasibility of establishing a uniform system of codes and code enforcement throughout Alachua County. The purpose
is not to examine the existing codes for their relative merits; rather, it is to identify for remedial action, any obstacles to the development of reasonably-priced housing created by inconsistencies among codes.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed in the introduction, the purpose of this report is to prepare for next year's development of a housing plan for Alachua County and municipalities. To achieve this purpose, this study has focussed on two separate, though highly related subject areas affecting the quantity and quality of housing within the county. The first subject area is concerned with identifying those existing and proposed programs! federal, state and local, which provide viable alternatives to the jurisdictions of Alachua County for the purpose of increasing the quantity and improving the quality of housing for their citizens. The second subject area is concerned with identifying any obstacles to the development of housing that are created by inconsistencies and/or inadequacies in the adoption and enforcement of housing-related codes within the jurisdictions of Alachua County. This chapter summarizes those major findings and recommendations which have resulted from an examination of each of these subject areas.
Housing Assistance Programs
An analysis of both existing and proposed housing assistance programs, federal, state and local, has determined the following:
1. that a number of federally-insured home loan programs
for medium-income families have not been affected by
recent cut-backs of federal housing programs; however,
rising costs of housing and spiraling interest rates have priced most of these programs out of
the housing and money markets.
2. that five federal housing assistance programs
remain as viable alternatives to local governments for the purpose of increasing the supply and/or of improving the quality of housing for
low and moderate-income families. However, four
of these programs are limited geographically
to unincorporated areas and/or incorporated areas
having less than 10,000 population.
3. that two state housing assistance programs have
recently been enacted for the purpose of increasing the supply of housing for low and moderateincome families. However, one of these programs
is not expected to be very effective at providing
housing for low-income groups.
4. that two local housing assistance programs designed
to help meet the needs of low and moderate-income
families have been initiated--one as a pilot
program currently being tested, the other held
up due to legal questions.
5. that an effective program providing for the construction of low and moderate-income families can probably best be achieved by utilizing a combination of federal, state and/or local housing
assistance programs in conjunction with each
6. that an effective program geared to the upgrading
of existing housing can probably best be achieved by establishing a systematic housing code compliance program in conjunction with two federallysubsidized housing repair loan programs.
7. that the large number of proposed programs, federal,
state and local, are too uncertain as to content
and/or timing to be established as part of a housing plan at this time.
Codes and Code Enforcement
A survey of housing-related codes, their basis in Florida law, and their present status of enforcement in Alachua County and municipalities has determined the following:
1. Development Controls Subdivision Regulations:
(a) that only four of the ten political jurisdictions
of Alachua County have adopted subdivision
(b) that both major and minor differences exist
in their respective requirements--differences
ranging from relatively minor requirements concerning the scale at which and the size
of paper on which the final plat is drawn to
relatively major requirements regarding the dedication and standards of improvement for
2. Development Controls Zoning Ordinances:
(a) that six of the ten jurisdictions have adopted
zoning ordinances; and
(b) that these ordinances vary in their respective
designations and requirements--variations
ranging from simple zone designation to the
lot, building and use requirements contained
3. That the State of Florida has adopted standards for
the purpose of regulating the following types of
construction and development activities and materials:
(a) hotel and restaurant construction;
(b) elevator construction;
(c) school building construction;
(d) fire safety;
(e) sewerage disposal facilities;
(f) water supply systems;
(g) mobile home construction;
(h) factory-built housing;
(i) liquefied petroleum gas facilities;
(j) glass materials.
4. Building Code:
(a) that the State of Florida will require all
counties and municipalities to adopt and
enforce one of several model building codes
by January 1, 1975; and
(b) that nine of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua
County presently enforce a building code; and
(c) that all nine utilize the Southern Standard
Building Code; however, not all of them use
the same edition and/or amendments.
S. Electrical Code:
(a) that the State of Florida presently requires
all counties and municipalities to adopt and enforce the National Electrical Code within their areas of jurisdiction; and
(b) that two of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua
County are not currently enforcing this code and, therefore, are in violation with Florida
(c) that the other eight jurisdictions enforcing
this code utilize different editions.
6. Plumbing Code:
(a) that the State of Florida has established a
plumbing code; however, Alachua County and communities are specifically exempted from
the requirements of this law; and
(b) that eight of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua
County are currently enforcing a plumbing code
(c) that all eight utilize the Southern Standard
Plumbing Code: however, different editio-ns,7amendments are enforced.
7. Gas Code:
(a) that three of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua
County are enforcing a gas piping/gas appliance
(b) that two of the three utilize the gas code
developed by the Southern Building Code Congress,
but have adopted different amendments;
whereas, the third jurisdiction uses the
code developed by the National Fire Protection Association.
8. Code Enforcement:
(a) that four of the nine municipalities of Alachua
County presently contract with the county for
construction code inspection services; and
(b) therefore, a total of five jurisdictions in
Alachua County have uniform codes and code
9. Housing Code:
(a) that two of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua
County have adopted a housing code; and
(b) that only one of the two has established a
systematic code compliance program for
implementing the code.
Based upon the above findings and recognizing the fact that problems associated with housing do not begin and end at jurisdictional boundaries and that programs initiated to help solve these problems can achieve greater overall effectiveness if their planning and implementation are coordinated
among jurisdictions, it is recommended that a committee on housing, having at least one representative from each of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County, be established for the purpose of advising the Council in the development of a comprehensive area-wide housing plan. It is further recommended that the committee consider the adoption as part of this plan, one or more of the following alternatives:
1. A plan for utilizing Section 23 Housing Assistance
Payments: Existing Housing (federal rent subsidy
2. A plan for utilizing the state's Rural Land Site
Acquisition and Development Fund in conjunction
with one or more of the following federal housing
(a) Farmers Home Administration Rural Housing
Loan Program (interest subsidy).
(b) Farmers Home Administration Rural Rental
Housing Loan Program (interest subsidy).
(c) Farmers Home Administration Rural SelfHelp Technical Assistance Program (technical assistance grant).
3. The adoption of housing codes and the establishment
of systematic code compliance programs for Alachua
County and communities having less than 10,000
population in order that two Farmers Home Administration programs involving subsidized housing repair
loans may be used to the maximum possible extent.
These are Section 502 Rural Housing Loans, and
Section 504 Rural Housing Repair Loans.
It is also recommended that the committee consider joint action on the following items:
1. the elimination of all unnecessary differences in
existing subdivision regulations, and the development of regulations for those communities which do
not presently have any.
2. The establishment of similar zone classifications
and zone requirements for all undeveloped border
areas between communities where to do so will not
misrepresent either community's land use plan, and
the development of land use plans and zoning
ordinances for those communities which do not presently have any regulations.
3. The establishment of uniform construction codes
(building, plumbing, electrical and gas) throughout Alachua County, and the development of a method
to ensure the uniform adoption of new editions
and amendments to the codes.
4. The establishment of a uniform system of code
enforcement throughout Alachua County utilizing
either a single county-wide agency or joint
training sessions for all inspectors operating
within the county.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
A study completed by this agency in 1973 projected a countywide need of over 56,000 housing units by the year 1985. The total number of existing housing units was estimated by 4the report to be 38,861; however, over 4,000 of these units were considered dilapidated. Thus, a total of 21,380 new housing units must be constructed to meet 1985 needs. Although recent trends in construction rates (1968-72) for the county indicated that if continued the projected need would be met, the report further compared projected median family income with projected costs of housing to find an everincreasing gap between the two. In carrying all projections to the year 1985, the report concludes that nearly 40 percent of all families will be unable to afford housing which costs more than $24,000--while the average cost of a 1,200 square foot, three bedroom house is anticipated to be in the range of $43,000. (N.C.F.R.P.C., Housing, 1973).
This is how the housing future looked last year. In this year of 1974, the outlook is even more gloomy. During and since the 1973 report, the housing industry has gone into a major slump--with new housing starts dropping off drastically from an all-time nationwide high in 1972. A number of reasons for this slump are being cited such as material shortages, tight money markets and the winding down of major federal housing assistance programs. If this slump persists for any length of time, the housing supply projections will certainly have to be adjusted downward.
--e nct reverse,, C' -ections e-.-er is
C 1 17 17 C S SZ ___e
recer-1v an-_r=,:nceC7 i
aa rationw-de Survev cclnI : I M.6_4, ': 1-7=e -- lders f
e ea 1 y _szcc-- _- ".;- C U
ccsts re.-se --mn a, eraae c- !7'-erce-- '-e-wee-;:-ercer-- 'cr ne, a and percent .4- C
x I s ln a un i s _,ews-etter, A-pril, 1914).
_'Z a C e I-- in s u p;a v a r. d i n c r e a s 41 in a c C s t s c, f c o u r s e a f f e c t s e,.- e ry c n e _evertI-eless, t'--e areat-est neaatJ-,.-e impact cf'
_ese trends Is o- 'cw- and __xed-_JirCc_-e groups. .-e--:, ;= m,:z of -1-ese -ec-"e wil" i-creasi-alv he withcul __e_-ent hCme" From where will t'--is help cor-ena
n, a t e t nswe- "-ese two quest cns. The
existinc: and r=pcsed prcarams, :-era-', s-a-e anC_: local, wl-4-1- -av provide viable a14-erna--es 7:c : ne 71_,rls d icticns of _'-',_1ac.-_,Ua C.cunty f"or the purpose
,=rea t y ard -prc7.,4-a the aualitv of
s na t1-e auanti'
u s f c e 4 r C 4 __zens.
-..e magn tu-_4e C-f 1-cusing, -_rohle.-s is such as tc re-uire massive e d e r a I state --art i c I raticr. Tccal covern-erts generally
--t '.-.a,,.-e the necessa-v resources +-c have a ma4cr ir.1aact n C u S-, i = s the ranl -s of federal hcusina
sslstance -rccra,-.s a%, 1-stan-tlally reduced, a few
-:rc-rams st, -remain and ct.he.- -r-graMs are 1-_-eina r-rc-osed.
___e State c-c :'licrida 1-as recent'-,,- t 4 a Z e d c- e !can --rcaram.
Z: 7 r C -.Ina
C_-;: a-_%-ern:-en-_s -cr h e ,.: I t L 7, a e _CSe ZrCl.-C'
C I nC C 7 e C -: S J ng a n c a1sc 'cnslaering the esta .'ishment '___Sj -a 14 a nu77 h e -?- c f
a s-_ate ra.rce aaenc%-.
_--a- -:cT.-ern-7,en1-s ;n-e %-a::r1c-,:s rrc,ects on the r
own. The following discussion examines these programs, existing and proposed, federal, state and local, and is subdivided accordingly.
Most of the existing federal housing assistance programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance are geared to help middle-income families obtain mortgage financing. These are the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) guaranteed/insured loan programs which simply insure repayment of all or part of a loan acquired on the private market at near-normal interest rates. Most of the programs set limits as to the insurable amount and the rate of interest--both of which are generally set too low for today's housing and money markets.
In an effort to stimulate new housing starts, Prs~n .ixon
announced last May plans for the federal government to provide over $10 billion to the mortgage market, part of which is in relation to the programs above. Some of this money would be used to subsidize the differences between 7 3/4 percent interest rate and the then current market rate of over 9 percent. Recent reports, however, indicate that the money isn't being used. This is due in part to the rapidly increasing costs of housing--costs well above the maximum. allowable mortgage under the programs above. (Gainesville Sun, "Efforts to Stimulate Housing Aren't Succeeding", July 21, 1974).
The housing assistance programers most heavily affected by recent federal cut-backs are the low-income subsidy programs. While
others are still listed in the federal catalog, only five programs remain which provide assistance in the form of rent or interest subsidies or grants--and which are aimed primarily at helping low and low-medium income groups. 1 These programs are briefly described as follows:
Housing Assistance Payments Program--Existing Housing
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as provided for by Section 23 of the U.S.
Housing Act of 1937 as amended by the Fousing and Urban
Act of 1965. This program provides housing assistance
payments on behalf of eligible low-income families
leasing privately-owned, existing, decent, safe and
sanitary housing. Once referred to as "leased public
housing", this program was recently amended to its
present form which provides more emphasis on existing housing as opposed to the construction of new housing.
The program makes up that difference in rent between
what the person renting can afford (limited to 25
percent of income) and rental-market rates. The money
is funneled through local housing authorities who
administer the program in their areas of responsibility.
Rural Housing Loans administered by the Farmers Fome
Administration as provided by Section 502 of the Housing
Act of 1949 as amended. This program provides direct
1 Up-to-date information concerning active and inactive
programs was obtained from officials located at the Jacksonville Area Office, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the State Office, Farmers Home Administration, Gainesville. A number of programs are being continued only for the purpose of maintaining existing supplies of public housing and for following through on previous commitments. No additional units of public housing will be I uilt or subsidized under these programs. For purposes of this report, only those programs alloweO to expand are being-considered here.
loans and insured loans to assist rural families in obtaining decent, safe and sanitary housing and other related facilities. The loans can be used-for the purchase or repair of dwellings and related facilities, e.g., sewerage facilities, and may have a subsidized interest rate to as low as 'I percent. The program is geared for low to moderate income families living or who, upon purchase, will live in unincorporated areas or places having less than 10,000 population.
Rural Housing Repair Loans administered by the Farmers Home AdministraElon as provided by Section 504 of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. This program provides direct or insured loans to assist very low income rural families in making minor essential repairs to their homes in order to make them safe and remove health hazards to the family and the community. The program is aimed at those home-owners who do not qualify for Section 502 repair loans. A maximum of $2,500 per home-owned unit is authorized with an additional $1,000 allowed for the installation of water, sewerage and/or bathroom and kitchen facilities. Loans may have a subsidized interest rate to as low as 1 percent.
Rural Rental Housing Loans administered by the Farmers Home AdminisT-rat-l'"on as provided by Sections 515 and 521, Housing Act of 1949 as amended. This program provides direct or insured loans for the purpose of constructing, purchasing, improving or repairing rental or cooperative housing. Loans with interest rates subsidized to as low as 1 percent may be made to owners who rent to low-income families. Applicants may be individuals, cooperatives, nonprofit organizations or corporations who do not have adequate resources of their own and who are unable to obtain credit from the private market.
Rural Self-Help Technical Assistance administered by the Farmers Home Administration as provided by Section 523, Housing Act of 1949 as amended. This program provides financial support for the promotion of technical and supervisory assistance which will aid needy low-income individuals and their families in carrying out mutual self-help efforts in rural areas. Grant funds may be used to provide for
technical assistance personnel, cover general administrative costs, provide essential power tools and pay
fees for training self-help group members in construction techniques. Applicants may be a State or political
subdivision thereof, and public or private non-prcfit
Proposed federally-assisted housing programs can be divided by their origin, that is, programs being proposed by the President, and programs being proposed by the Congress. While a number of large differences exist in the proposals, the approach is similar in that both the Congress and the President support a change from the existing method which utilizes a system of separate "categorical" grants--to a system of "block" grants whereby recipients will have greater discretionary power as to how the money will be spent.
Outside of maintaining those FHA and FmFA home mortgage guaranteed loan programs aimed to help the middle-income buyer already discussed, the Administration is proposing only one housing program to aid low-income families. Technically, even this program hasn't reached the proposal stage yet as it is in the process of being tested in various cities and rural areas across the nation. In the meantime, the Administration is utilizing the existing Section 23 Fousing Assistance Payments program as amended pending a complete evaluation of the experimental prograir.
The thrust of the experimental program is to find out whether direct cash allowances to the poor for housing will work better than the subsidy programs for developers utilized in the past. The underlying premise of this approach is that the basic problem facing the poor is lack of income, not so much lack of housing. Backers of this proposal hope that this approach will cause maximum use be made of existing housing by encouraging landlords to bring existing structures up to standard in order to meet the increased demand for lowincome housing. The approach de-emphasizes the construction of new low-income housing units.
The President has already proposed a bill entitled the "Better Communities act" as the block-grant replacement for the former categorical grant programs relating to community development, that is, those programs aimed at urban renewal, neighborhood development, water/sewer systems, recreation and others. However, this proposal does not tie into any housing assistance programs, existing or proposed.
In contrast to the President's separate proposals concerning housing and community development, Congress is proposing a so-called "omnibus" bill, that is, a bill which provides for a number of related programs under a single piece of legislation. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have passed differing versions of a bill which includes chapters dealing with community development, comprehensive planning, housing assistance (urban and rural), and other related activities. Apparently, the major differences between the
two hills pertain mainly to the housing assistance programs, with the House of Representatives version reflecting the basic Administration proposals (described above). This bill is reportedly receiving Presidential support. on the other hand, the Senate wishes to retain several of the more successful existing programs which aid production as well as provide rent subsidies to the very poor. The Senate's position is that adequate supplies of low-income housing do not presently exist.
A House-Senate conference committee is presently attempting to resolve the differences between the two bills. Presumably, some middle ground will be reached; however, it is uncertain at this time which of the proposed provisions will be reported out of committee.
Recognizing the need for defining the state's role concerning the provision of housing for all segments of the state's population, the Florida Legislature enacted a bill requiring the governor to submit to the 1973 Legislature a state housing plan. This bill, entitled the "Florida Housing Act of 1972", is found in Chapter 420, Florida Statutes.
As prescribed by law, Governor Askew prepared a housing plan which set forth state housing production and rehabilitation needs for a twelve-year period ending in June, 1985. The
governor further provided the legislature with recommendations for state action--action designed to help meet projected needs for housing during this period. In developing these recommendations, the governor recognized the state's dependency on Federal housing assistance programs and, therefore, the major programs recommended were designed to augment existing and proposed federal programs. A description of these programs, both enacted and proposed, follows.
Although the state has recently passed a number of measures designed to expedite housing construction such as a. statewide building code requirement and manpower assistance to county offices of the Farmers Home Administration, only two major state housing assistance programs presently exist.
Florida Housing Development Corporation
Part II of Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, authorizes the establishment of a private, profit-making corporation for the purpose of promoting and developing housing within the state. Although passed by the state legislature in 1972, certain provisions of the state law required special federal enabling legislation before the law could be implemented. This necessary federal legislation was subsequently passed in 1973. As embodied by the act, the primary purposes of the Florida Housing Development Corporation are as follows:
1. To mobilize capital;
2. To finance new or rehabilitated housing for
persons of low or moderate income in the state;
3. To find new methods of providing subsidies for
4. To encourage and assist, through loans, including
loans at below market interest rates, investments, or other business transactions, in the elimination
of substandard housing in this state;
5. To rehabilitate and assist existing housing, and
so to stimulate and assist in the expansion of
all kinds of housing activity which will tend to promote the development of new or rehabilitated
housing and improve the standard of living of
the citizens of this state;
6. To cooperate and act in conjunction with other
organizations, public or private, in the promotion
and advancement of housing developments in this
7. To provide financing for the construction of all
kinds of housing activity in this state.
Although the purposes provide for a focus on the promotion of housing for low-income persons, economic reality suggests that this part of the corporation's function will be somewhat limited. (Housing in Florida, Vol. 5, pp. 66-67).
Such a corporation is in the process of being established at this time. (Interview with Tom Lewis, Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee). According to law, a minimum of 15 banks, loan associations and other similar type organizations authorized to do business in the state must become stock-holders of the corporation to an aggregate amount of not less than $100,000.
Rural Land Site Acquisition and Development Fund
This program is one which evolved from those recommendations developed as part of the state's housing plan. The program provides for a revolving state loan fund of $2 1/2 million for the purpose of making funds available to rural housing authorities and/or local governments for the advance acquisition and development of land for housing low and moderateincome families.
With spiraling land costs, this program takes its lead from large private developers who have been purchasing large areas of "cheap" land outside the urban areas for the purpose of building housing for medium and high-income families. The idea is for this program to augment local resources with lowcost state loans in order that local authorities may purchase and develop land before it appreciates too much in value. The price paid for the land would have to be low enough to be eligible for publicly-assisted housing programs.
This advance site acquisition program is directed at shortterm housing needs only. The program is not to be utilized as a means of controlling urban growth. The intent of the program is that once land is acquired and made ready for sponsors to build on, it would be made available for sale. This program was just recently enacted by the Florida Legislature and the specific rules and regulations are presently being prepared. These guidelines should be available by late October of this year. (Interview with Tom Lewis, Department of Community Affairs, July, 1974).
The two existing state housing programs discussed above focus on the construction of housing for low and moderate-income families. A third program has been proposed which would provide for subsidized interest rates on mortgages made directly to this same income group for the purchase of housing. This program involves the creation of a state housing finance agency.
Technically, a specific program of this nature has not yet been proposed--rather, the proposal is for further study of the feasibility of a state finance agency only. While the method of operation for such an agency can take several forms (and several are apparently being considered), the intent of the agency would be to provide low-interest loans to eligible families for the purchase of housing. The difference in interest rates would either be subsidized entirely by the state, the federal government or a combination of both. In the former case, the state would utilize its ability to acquire lower interest rates on loans and bonds, along with savings which result from its tax-exempt status. These savings could then be passed on to the individual. In the latter two cases, direct federal subsidies to the state would be involved.
Apparently several legal as well as other questions pertaining to the effectiveness of such a state program still need to be resolved. The program is also dependent to some extent on the form that future federal housing assistance programs take. However, it is anticipated that such an agency will
be recommended to the Florida Legislature at some future date. 2
Only one program presently exists within Alachua County which is entirely sponsored by a unit of local government for the purpose of providing housing for low-income families. While other housing subsidy programs within the county continue to function, these programs are neither local in origin (as defined in this report) and, with the possible exception of Section 23 Housing Assistance Payments Program, nor will the number of units sponsored by these programs be increased. This is referring to those public housing and rent supplement projects which were developed by local sponsors with the aid of several federal housing assistance programs--programs now in the process of being phased out. Although no new units are being subsidized, existing supplies are continuing to receive federal assistance for operation and maintenance purposes.
In October, 1973, the City of Gainesville authorized $50,000 of revenue sharing money for the purpose of funding a pilot
2 Information concerning this program was obtained from several sources: Housing in Florida, Vol 2; First Annual Report on State Housing Goals, 1973; and Housing in Florida, 1974. All of these studies were prepared in part by the State Department of Community Affairs.
program designed to provide home ownership for low-income families. Specifically, the program provides for a one-time grant to families to be used toward the down payment and closing costs on new or rehabilitated houses. Depending upon need, families may receive up to $1,500 for this purpose. The program further provides for counseling services to the participants concerning home budgetary, maintenance, insurance and financing. An estimated 30 families, whose incomes are just above the maximum, allowed in order to qualify for public housing, will be able to receive assistance under this program.
While the above pilot program is presently underway within the City of Gainesville, a different kind of program is being proposed for Alachua County. The county program emphasizes the construction of housing for low-income families. As proposed, the county would provide $750,000 worth of revenue certificates to a non-profit corporation for the purpose of constructing low-cost housing. The intent of the program is to keep the cost of the houses down to a point where buyers would not have to pay more than $100 per month for purchase. The concept is similar to the one proposed in the state housing finance agency discussed previously. Also similar to the state proposal, however, certain legal questions must be resolved before the program can be implemented. In the meantime, the county has adopted an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the necessary revenue certificates.
SUMMARY OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Due to a change in policy at the national level, only five federal subsidy or grant housing assistance programs remain as viable alternatives for utilization by local governments. Four of these programs apply only to rural areas. Two versions of a major housing bill are presently being considered by a joint House-Senate conference committee of the U.S. Congress. One version proposes to maintain existing programs for the most part, while the other version would reinstate several former subsidy programs for housing construction. A new experimental program consisting of direct cash housing allowances to the poor is currently being tested by the Administration as a major alternative to housing construction subsidy programs.
The State of Florida has only recently established housing objectives and subsequent housing legislation. Two major state housing assistance programs are in the process of becoming established and a third is presently being considered for possible future legislation. One of the two existing programs applies only to rural areas. Both programs are expected to benefit moderate-income more than low-income families. Both also focus on housing production as opposed to home purchase.
One local housing assistance program has been initiated on a trial basis. This program provides direct grants and counseling services for home ownership to low-income families within the City of Gainesville. One other program emphasizing housing construction for low-income families has been proposed and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners, Alachua
County; however, a question concerning the program's legality under the present state constitution must be resolved before the program can be implemented.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The limited and fragmented nature of existing housing assistance programs and the uncertainty of those proposed severely restricts the number of viable alternatives available to the jurisdictions of Alachua County for the purpose of increasing the quantity and improving the quality of housing for their citizens. A study of these programs shows this to be especially true for the City of Gainesville. The recent federal cut-back on housing subsidy programs has left only one program which can be utilized by the larger urban areas. This is the Housing Assistance Payments Program, better known as "Section 23". Even this program does not present the city with much of an alternative since present funding levels provide for only 50 units for the entire State of Florida. (Source: Area Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Jacksonville). Since both houses of Congress have included this program in their differing versions of housing legislation, however, it is anticipated that this program will receive expanded funding in the near future. The only state program which may offer any opportunities to the city is the Housing Development Corporation. However, such a corporation has not yet been established in the state. Also, the effectiveness of this approach in providing housing for low-income families is questionable. Thus, until new federal legislation is enacted, the entire burden of providing more families with decent housing rests on the city alone. The city is presently doing this in twc ways: the
pilot home-ownership grant program described above; and a housing code compliance program discussed in the next chapter.
The remaining federal and state subsidy programs are restricted geographically to unincorporated areas and/or urban areas having less than 10,000 population. These limits include all the remaining nine jurisdictions of Alachua County. While a number of these programs can be utilized on an individual basis, an analysis of the programs indicates that together, the effectiveness of the programs in providing housing for low-income families could be greatly increased. The key program in this integration process is the recently enacted state Rural Land Site Acquisition and Development Fund--a program designed to reduce the costs of land and land development to sponsors of low- and moderate-income housing.
The state anticipated this type of coordinated program development when the bill was passed. It was initially thought that Section 23 would be the primary program that low-income housing sponsors could utilize in conjunction with the state land acquisition program. However, recent amendments to Section 23 emphasize the use of existing housing. Nevertheless, a number of other housing assistance programs which do emphasize new construction may be utilized. These are the Farmers Home Administration Rural Housing Loan Program, Rural Rental Housing Loan Program and the Rural Self-Eelp Technical Assistance Program. The first two programs provide for interest subsidies on direct or insured loans for the purpose of constructing new single and multi-family dwellings, while the third program provides local governments or housing authorities with grants for the purpose of providing direct supervisory construction assistance to self-help groups. These programs have been previously described and will not be repeated here.
Other possible combinations are the site acquisition program along with the county-sponsored construction program, the Housing Development Corporation, and/or a program utilizing less-costly factory-built houses or possibly even mobile homes. These possible combinations are more remote due to the legal questions involved with the county proposal, a question as to whether the state will allow modular or mobile homes to be used in conjunction with the program, and the uncertain status and questionable effectiveness of the Housing Development Corporation.
Two of the Farmers Home Administration assistance programs provide for subsidized housing repair loans. Both the unincorporated areas of the county and the smaller communities qualify geographically for these programs. These programs provide another possible alternative to these areas for inclusion into a comprehensive housing effort. These programs could be utilized in conjunction with housing code enforcement programs for the purpose of upgrading the quality of existing housing. A detailed discussion of housing code compliance programs is provided in the following chapter.
As indicated in the introductory chapter, this report is preparatory to next year's development of a housing plan for Alachua County and municipalities. Even though most existing federal and state housing assistance programs are restricted in their application to either urban areas or rural areas, such a plan should not be developed in isolation by the various communities. It is a widely accepted fact that whatever one jurisdiction does or does not do in terms of solving its housing problems, other jurisdictions in the general vicinity are also affected. Furthermore, even though separate housing programs will be involved in
these communities, these programs can achieve greater overall effectiveness if their planning and implementation are coordinated. Therefore, it is recommended that a committee, having at least one representative from each of the ten jurisdictions in Alachua County, be established for the purpose of advising the Regional Council in the development of a comprehensive area-wide housing plan. It is further recommended that this committee consider the adoption as part of this plan, one or more of the following alternatives:
1. A plan for utilizing Section 23 Housing Assistance
Payments--Existing Housing (rent subsidy program).
2. A plan for utilizing the state's Rural Land Site
Acquisition and Development Fund in conjunction
with one or more of the following federal programs:
(a) FmHA Rural Housing Loan Program (interest
(b) FmHA Rural Rental Housing Loan Program
(c) FmHA Rural Self-Help Technical Assistance
3. A plan for making maximum use of two Farmers Home
Administration subsidized housing repair loan
programs. These are: Section 502 Rural Housing
Loans; and Section 504 Rural Housing Repair Loans.
Finally, it is recommended that the committee design the housing plan in such a way that housing assistance programs only now being proposed may, upon enactment, be easily amended to and made a part of the total housing program.
HOUSING AND HOUSING-RELATED CODES
This final section of the report focuses on those standards adopted by units of local governments covering the development and maintenance of land and structures within their areas of jurisdiction. Such standards are adopted by governmental entities in order to meet their responsibilities in providing for the health and safety of their citizens. However, positive secondary effects are also realized by communities and citizens alike. Though primarily geared to the physical protection of people, the establishment of minimum standards allows a measure of protection for a person's investment-whether it be a home, business, or parcel of land--and in doing so, has the added favorable effect of lowering insurance rates covering such investments. The adoption of minimum standards can further qualify jurisdictions for special federal-aid programs, for example, the recently enacted Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 which provides for subsidized flood insurance to people located in flood-prone areas.
Except in certain cases where it is more efficient or effective to have state or federal regulation (such as in manufactured housing), the authority to prepare, administer, and enforce construction and development standards in Florida is delegated to the units of general purpose government, that is, counties and municipalities. As established in a series of studies compiled by the Governor's Task Force on Housing,
the justification and need for having minimum standards relating to housing are generally conceded by local governments throughout Florida and, as will be seen, are widely accepted in Alachua County and municipalities. (Housing in Florida, Volumes 1-5, 1972). Nevertheless, standards utilized by jurisdictions can and do vary among units of local government--a proliferation of codes and enforcement procedures which can create unintentioned obstacles to development and, therefore, result in higher costs of housing and other types of development.
Recognizing the need foi: eliminating problems created by inconsistencies among jurisdictions concerning construction and development standards, steps are being taken toward studying the feasibility of establishing uniform area-wide codes and systems of enforcement both at the state and local levels of government. This study represents one of these efforts; however, the purpose is somewhat more limited in scope in that the feasibility of establishing uniform codes throughout Alachua County can only be determined by the jurisdictions affected. Therefore, the primary objective of the following discussion is to provide in a single document, information which can be utilized by the local governments of Alachua County for such a purpose.
CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT:
ALACHUA COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES
The following relates the existing situation concerning housing and housing-related codes in Alachua County and municipalities. For purposes of discussion these standards are subdivided into basically three types: (1) Development Standards which include subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances; (2) Construction Standards which include building, electrical, plumbing and gas codes; and (3) Maintenance Standards which include housing codes.
Development Standards are primarily concerned with the improvement and use of land. Their purpose is to insure that, among other things, lots are subdivided properly, adequate and suitable community services are provided the development, and uses of adjoining parcels are compatible. In this category are placed subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances.
Though often considered to be a post-World War II phenomenon, codified standards governing the subdivision of land have been traced back to the earliest European settlements in this country. As the nation developed, subdivision regulations were increasingly adopted by units of local government to insure that proposed subdivisions were accurately surveyed and
platted, and that they provided for a logical extension of existing development. In more recent years, communities have begun to require an increasing number of improvements be provided a development before plats can be recorded and lots sold. Such improvements generally include some or all of the following: (1) safe water and sanitary sewage systems;
(2) safe design and proper construction of street and drainage systems; (3) design of water and street systems to provide for adequate fire-fighting capabilities; and (4) dedication of land for public use, for example, schools and parks (ICMA, Principles and Practice of Urban Planning, 1968, pp. 443-45).
Presently within the State of Florida, local government authority to adopt and enforce regulations governing the subdivision and improvement of land is specifically provided for by Chapter 163 Florida Statutes. While this law establishes in some detail the procedures for adopting and enforcing this authority, it does not repeal or modify any other local or special legislative act relating to subdivision regulations utilized by units of local government prior to the passage of this act in 1969. Other laws which more indirectly relate to the subdivision and improvement of land in Florida are Chapters 125, 165, 166, 177, 380, 381 and 403, Florida Statutes. Chapters 165 and 166 delegate powers of incorporation, eminent domain, taxation, and other "home rule" authorities to municipalities; whereas, Chapter 125 delegates similar authorities to counties. Chapter 177 establishes minimum requirements for plats accepted for recording by county clerks or other public recording officers; while Chapter 380 requires that subdivision developments over a certain size (minimum size determined by county's population) be reviewed for their regional (multi-county) impact by area-wide planning councils
whose recommendations must be considered by local governments prior to issuing development permits. Finally_ Chapters 381 and 403 provide for State Division of Health approval of plans for water, and Department of Pollution Control approval for sanitary sewer systems prior to their installation in subdivisions.
Out of all of these, only the last four can be considered state requirements as such and in each of these cases, the enforcement authority is delegated to local governments under general state supervision. The important point to note, however, is that whereas units of local government are delegated the authority to establish and enforce minimum standards of development regarding the subdivision and development of land within their areas of jurisdiction, they are not necessarily required to do so. State law simply requires that counties follow certain procedures in the record'Lng of plats and in the permitting of water and sewer systems, and that municipalities and counties alike follow those guidelines established for the review of Developments of Regional Impact.
At the present time, only four of the ten Jurisdictions in Alachua County have adopted subdivision regulations. These are Alachua County, and the Cities of Archer, Gainesville, and High Springs. Several other communities are presently considering the adoption of subdivision regulations and, at least two of those communities which have not adopted subdivision regulations require that subdivision plats be reviewed by their planning and/or city commissions. (Interviews with local officials, May, 1974.)
Between the subdivision regulations presently in force within the county, a number of differences exist in their respective requirements. These differences range from relatively minor requirements regarding the scale at which and the size of paper on which the final plat is drawn, to relatively major requirements concerning the dedication and standards of improvement for streets. Even in this latter case, however, the differences appear to be relatively minor in nature.
As indicated earlier, the purpose of this section is to outline the nature of the problem-if any are found to exist. Several local officials interviewed expressed the view that the lack of subdivision regulations in some of the communities and the differing requirements of those regulations in force in others do cause problems--to developers and enforcing officials alike. On the one hand, developers who dislike certain requirements will sometimes threaten to locate their development in areas having little or no regulations; while on the other hand, developers who see the benefits and willingly go along with such requirements are faced with sometimes trivial differences in regulations from one community to another. These differences become major cost factors, especially in the case of the subdivision development strattling two political jurisdictions.
In conclusion, essentially two types of problems have emerged from this brief survey concerning the adoption and enforcement of subdivision regulations in Alachua County and municipalities. First, a number of communities have not adopted a formal set of subdivision regulations. These communities not only risk possible substandard development occurring in their areas of jurisdiction at some point in the future,
but they also severely limit their options for controlling the growth and development of their areas. The-second prowler identified are those communities which have adopted subdivision regulations, but are utilizing different reQuirements--differences which may not be necessary nor very large, yet still can create obstacles to the development of reasonably-priced housing and other activities within their areas of jurisdiction.
Whereas subdivision regulations have been around since our nation's beginnings, zoning ordinances are a relatively recent phenomenon, with the first effort at contemporary zoning in this country occurring in New York City in 191C (ICMA, Principles and Practices of Urban Planning, 1968, pp. 40342). Like subdivision regulations, zoning ordinances are legal instruments utilized by jurisdictions for the ultimate purpose of providing for the health, safety and welfare of citizens.
Zoning is one of the most misunderstood and, in some areas, mistrusted tools available for use to local governments. Used correctly, zoning can provide for the orderly growth and development of an area by insuring that new growth is directed into appropriate places according to a logically developed land-use plan. In doing so, it protects the individual citizen by stabilizing and preserving property values by insuring that land uses in the area are properly situated in relation to one another, and by providing adequate space necessary to each type of development. It further alloV7S the control of development density so that each property can be
adequately serviced by community facilities such as streets, utilities, schools and parks. Finally, zoning can insure that each development is afforded adequate light, air, and privacy for the benefit of persons living and working within the area.
To accomplish these purposes, zoning ordinances generally will divide a jurisdiction into districts based on use, such as residential, commercial, and industrial, and will regulate within these districts: (1) the height and bulk of buildings and other structures; (2) the area of a lot which may be occupied and the size of required open spaces;
(3) the density of population; and (4) the use of buildings and land for trade, industry, residence, and other purposes.
The authority of counties and municipalities in Florida to adopt and enforce zoning is specifically delegated by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. As in the case of subdivision regulations, this statute does not repeal or modify local ordinances developed under other statutes or other special acts. The important difference of this statute, however, is that it requires that a land-use plan be adopted by jurisdictions prior to the establishment of a zoning ordinance and map. Other laws which more indirectly relate to local government zoning are Chapters 125 (Counties) and 165/166 (Municipalities). As indicated earlier, these chapters are concerned with the establishment and authorities of substate political divisions and municipal incorporations. It should also be noted that Chapters 1OD-26 and 14-60, Florida Administrative Code, contain special regulations pertaining to the development of mobile home parks and airport zoning respectively.
A survey of political jurisdictions in Alachua County shows that more communities have adopted zoning ordinances than
they have subdivision regulations. At the present time Alachua County, the Cities of Alachua, Gainesville, Iawthorne, High Springs, and Newberry have zoning ordinances in effect. Also, at least two other communities are in the process of establishing such ordinances. (Interviews with- local officials, May, 1974).
A cursory examination of those zoning ordinances points to numerous differences--differences ranging from simple zone designation to the lot, building and use requirements contained therein. For example, the R-A Single Family Residential Zone in High Springs is, for all intent and purposes, equivalent to the R-la Single Family Residential Zone in 7\lachua County-different in designation, but only a few minor differnces in terms of their respective requirements. On the other hand, the R-lc Single-Family Residential Zone designation is utilized by both the City of Gainesville and Alachua County; yet their respective ordinances show substantial differences in lot and building requirements for that particular zone designation.
While differences exist, some major and some minor, the case for area-wide uniformity of zoning ordinances cannot be argued as strongly as in the case of other housing-related codes. For one thing, zoning ordinances should reflect existing situations and patterns of development to a large degree, and these patterns invariably differ from one community to another. Zoning ordinances should also reflect the goals and objectives of the individual communities as these are embodied in the community's land-use plan. Such
goals and objectives also vary among communities. With this being the case, then the question arises as to what can be done to help ease the developer's plight when faced with the varying requirements of different jurisdictions?
In some situations, the answer to the above question will be "nothing". However, in other cases--especially those involving relatively undeveloped "boundary" areas--communities may be able to designate similar zone categories and institute similar requirements provided their respective land-use plans call for the same type and level of development for the area. In the present situation in Alachua County, there are a number of instances where this is already being done--the most obvious example being the City of Gainesville's and Alachua County's Single Family Residential R-la zone. Nevertheless, situations exist whereby similar zone designations and/or requirements for adjoining areas located in separate political jurisdictions would not probably misrepresent the intent of either community's land use plan, yet to have such might result in one less obstacle to the developer, a little less cost to the consumer and, perhaps, one less headache to local officials.
In summary, it can be stated that essentially the same two types of problems are involved with the adoption and implementation of both subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances throughout Alachua County. These are: (1) several communities in Alachua County have not adopted either one or the other of these two ordinances; and (2) those communities that have done so utilize different designations and requirements. In the case of zoning ordinances, however, the degree to which it is a problem and the degree to which it
can or should be resolved differs substantially from the case of subdivision regulations. Nevertheless, improvements in both situations are not only possible, but highly desirable for developers, consumers, and communities alike.
Construction standards can be defined as the establishment of minimum safeguards covering the design and construction of buildings and other facilities for the purpose of protecting people who live and work in or around them from fire and other hazards, and to further provide for the health and safety of the general public. Such standards, in one form or another, have been traced back to the earliest days of civilized society. (National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American City, 1968, pp. 254-72).
Specifically, construction standards regulate structural loads and stresses in the design and erection of buildings, the installation of and materials used in heating, plumbing and electrical systems, elevator and escalator construction, fireproofing and safety facilities, light and ventilation and many other matters concerned with the facility itself. Many people consider the term "construction standards" to be synonymous with the so-called "building codes", the latter generally meaning to include building, plumbing, electrical and gas codes. However, construction standards can generally be considered to include any regulations which establish minimum standards governing the design and construction of buildings and related facilities.
As with development standards, the establishment and enforcement of construction standards are provided for under the ",police-power" authorities of the U. S. Constitution. Many of these powers are passed down to units of local government for implementation--some on an optional basis.
For purposes of this discussion--based on existing Florida law--construction standards can be categorized into essentially three basic types: (1) state enforced; (2) locally enforced; and (3) optional. The first category is defined as including those construction standards which are established state-wide and which are enforced by agencies of state government. The second category includes those standards promulgated by the state, but which require local government adoption and enforcement. The third category includes those construction standards not required by state law nor necessarily promulgated by the state but often are included as part of the normal code requirements of local
State Fnforced Construction Standards
As stated above, the following represents those construction standards which are promulgated and enforced by the various agencies of Florida state government. These standards apply and are uniformly administered state-wide and, therefore, only need be listed and briefly summarized for purposes of this report. 1
1 The following is largely drawn from a discussion concerning state building code functions found in Appendix II Housing in Florida, Vol. 4, prepared by the Governor's Task Force on Housing and Community Development.
Hotel and Restaurant Construction administered by the Department of Business Regulatians as provided for by Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The department utilizes a number of model codes such as the Southern Standard Building Code and National Electrical Code along with several state developed codes. Counties with building departments may be certified by the state to conduct the actual inspections.
Elevator Construction administered by the Department of Business Regulations under the provisions of Chapter 399, Florida Statutes. The department utilizes the American National Standards Institute Code to govern the construction of all elevators, escalators, dumbwaiters and moving walks.
School Building Construction administered by the Department of Education (Bureau of School Facilities) as provided for by Chapter 235, Florida Statutes. The department utilizes a combination of model and department developed codes. Counties must receive State approval of both preliminary and final plans before initiating construction of the facility.
Fire Safety administered by the Department of Insurance with the department head also designated as State Fire Marshall. Provided for by Chapter 633, Florida Statutes, the department utilizes portions of the National Fire Protection Code to govern the construction and maintenance of fire protective systems for high rise buildings, schools, hospitals, mobile homes, and other facilities.
Sewerage Disposal Facilities administered by the Department of PolluTi-on Control under the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The department has established minimum stardards and issues permits for the installation
of both individual disposal systems and sanitary sewage works, public or private. Applications for permits are filed with the local health office in the case of individual systems, and directly with the department in the case of sanitary sewage systems.
Code. However, those portions of the codes dealing with gas, plumbing, electrical or glass standards are not to be included or enforced. Local governments and state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities Pay utilize more stringent requirements than those specified by the above codes provided: (1) a justifiable need can be demonstrated; and (2) the additional requirements are not discriminatory in nature. All this is provided for by the recently enacted "Florida Building Codes Act of 1974".
Many, if not most communities in Florida, had already adopted and were currently enforcing building codes in their areas of jurisdiction prior to the enactment of this law. Specific authority to do so is found in Chapters 125 (Counties), 165 (Municipalities) and 163 (both, including multi-jurisdictional agreements). These laws, however, neither require compliance nor prescribe the type of code to be utilized.
Nearly every political jurisdiction in Alachua County is presently enforcing either an unabridged or modified version of the Southern Standard Building Code. The only community which is not covered is currently considering adopting the same code used by Alachua County in order to contract with the county for inspection services. (Interviews with local officials, May, 1974.) It is anticipated that this municipality will make a decision concerning the county inspection services in the near future. Since most of the modifications made by the individual communities to the Southern Standard Building Code pertain only to the administrative portions of the code, that is, fee schedules, and other administrative detail, the only significant differences between them are the edition being enforced (e.g., the 1973 edition as opposed to the 196.0 edition) and whether or not the most recent amendments to the code have been adopted.
Throughout the County, five of the nine jurisdictions having a building code utilize the 1973 or latest e ition of the Southern Standard Building Code along with the 1974 amendments. The other five communities use the 1969 or older editions. As reported by the National Commission on 17rhan Problems, this is not a unique situation. In their 1968 report to the Congress and the President, they stated that fronly 28 percent [of those governments utilizing model codes] had adopted as much as 90 percent of the recommended changes of the model code groups during the previous 3 years". 2 (Building the American City, p. 257).
At this point, a note of explanation is in order. As with most "model" codes, proven new materials and techniques are generally incorporated into the Southern Standard Building Code, along with other necessary changes to remove conflicting standards within the code itself and with other related codes. This is usually done on an annual basis in the form of amendments and, after a number of years, a new edition of the code is adopted and published by the Southern Building Code Congress. Even with this regular updating process, charges are still leveled at building codes in general as being too conservative with regard to new innovations and materials. While not taking a stand one way or the other regarding such charges, with the cost of housing and other structures rapidly increasing, it is important that local governments keep abreast of those changes which are shown to be sound by adopting the latest editions and amendments to their model codes.
2 These figures are based on a survey of- over 4,000 units of local government having 5,000 or more population.
A member of the so-called 'mechanical" codes--plumbing, electrical and gas--which together with the building code make up what is generally considered the "building codes", the electrical code establishes minimum standards pertaining to the design, installation and materials used for providing light, heat or power to buildings and certain other facilities. While the authority of local governments in Florida to adopt and enforce electrical codes is found in several statutes, Chapter 553, Part II, entitled the "Florida Electrical Code", specifically requires all incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions to adopt and enforce a statewide electrical code. In prescribing minimum electrical standards, the state has adopted a series of model and state developed codes--seven of which apply to specific types of equipment, materials or facilities to act as supplements to an eighth, more general code which applies to all other situations. 3The general purpose code adopted by the state is the National Fire Protection Association's, National Electrical Code, 1968 edition. Local governments can use codes other than the ones listed in Chapter 553 provided that such codes are not less stringent in their requirements.
Eight of the ten jurisdictions in Alachua County are presently enforcing the National Electrical Code--seven of whom are using the most recent (1971) edition. The eighth community (Archer) enforces the 1968 edition. The remaining
3The codes adopted by this part are listed in Appendix A.
two communities (Waldo and LaCrosse) do not enforce any electrical code and, therefore, are not in compliance idth state law. (Interview with local officials, May, 1974.)
Optional Construction Standards
This third and final category includes those construction standards neither enforced by the state, nor the enforcement of which is required Ly state law at the local level, but are nevertheless often included as part of a community's comprehensive code enforcement program. The remaining #I mechanical" code types fall within this category, that is, plumbing and gas.
The purpose of the plumbing code is to establish minimum standards concerning the design, installation and materials used in the construction of plumbing systems. Similar to the electrical code, the plumbing code supplements the provisions of the building code to insure that mechanical systems as well as the structure are properly designed and constructed.
The State of Florida currently has a state plumbing code. The code is contained in Chapter 1OD-9, Florida Administrative Code, and is authorized by Chapter 553, Part I, Florida Statutes. While a certain amount of confusion exists as to whom or what the provisions of the law and the code applies, the County of Alachua is specifically
exempted. 4 Whereas Alachua County is exempted from Chapter 553, all counties and municipalities are specifically authorized to adopt and enforce plumbing codes in their areas of jurisdiction by Chapter 125 (County), Chapter 165 (Cities) and Chapter 163 (both), Florida Statutes.
Although not required by state law, eight of the ten jurisdictions in the county are enforcing a plumbing code. Only the communities of Waldo and LaCrosse are not doing so at the present time. All the communities enforcing such a code are utilizing the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As with the other codes discussed thus far, however, different editions and/or amendments are in use. (Interview with local officials, May, 1974).
Gas Piping Gas Appliances
As indicated earlier, the state has adopted and presently enforces a code covering liquefied petroleum gases (L.P. Gas Code). This code, however, does not include those gases normally handled in a gaseous state, e.g., natural gas, nor those undiluted L.P. gases or gas-air mixtures. To bridge this gap, model codes have been developed which establish minimum safe standards pertaining to the design and installation of gas piping systems and gas appliances.
14 An investigation into this question did not result in a definitive interpretation of this statute. One part of Chapter 533 implies that local governments have the option of implementing the law, while other parts imply that they are required to unless specifically exempted by the law itself, as is the case with P..,lachua County.
Because of the importance of such a code, while not required, a number of communities throughout Florida have incorporated such a code into their comprehensive code enforcement program.
The authority of jurisdictions in Florida to adopt and enforce gas codes is again found in Chapters 125 (Counties), 165 (Municipalities) and 163 (both), Florida Statutes.
In Alachua County, three communities have adopted a gas piping and appliance code. Two communities (Archer and Micanopy) utilize the Southern Standard Code, while the City of Gainesville enforces a similar code developed by the National Fire Protection Association. Although Archer and Micanopy use the same code, different amendments to the Southern Standard are presently in force. Of all the construction codes discussed thus far, this type of code is utilized by the least number of communities in Alachua County.
Systems of Enforcement
Before closing out this discussion on construction standards, a word or two needs to be said about existing code enforcement procedures in Alachua County. As previously noted, a number of smaller communities contract with the County for building inspection services. This probably explains why Alachua County and communities have a higher rating than the national average with regard to maintaining more up-todate and greater uniformity of construction codes.
By having such an arrangement, benefits accrue to both parties. The smaller communities benefit by saving themselves the cost of establishing and maintaining a building inspection department which, due to their small size, is generally not economical. The County benefits by realizing certain economies of scale--since it must service the farthest reaches of the unincorporated parts of the county anyway. Finally, citizens of all parties benefit not only due to the savings in cost due to the reasons stated above, but also by having both uniform codes and a more uniform system of enforcement.
This latter situation is addressed by several of the national studies on housing and urban problems referenced earlier. All of the reports indicated that both the lack of uniform codes as well as the lack of uniform enforcement programs are equally significant problems. This last problem is caused by variations in code interpretation by local building officials--reading from the same code. A number of possible solutions to this problem are presented in these reports ranging from joint training sessions to the establishment of a single county-wide enforcement agency. Each solution, however, brings with it certain other problems--problems which must be analyzed in light of individual local situations. For example, whereas a single county-wide enforcement agency may seem like the ideal solution for an area, the disruption caused to existing departments, and the problems caused by simple logistics and the large bureaurcracy formed may negate most the benefits received from such an action. In that case, perhaps the adoption of uniform codes and the establishment of regularly scheduled joint training sessions would be the best solution. Certainly,
the ramifications of each of these possible solutions would have to be considered in some detail before action is taken.
In Alachua County, four of nine municipalities presently have contracts with the county for the provision of building inspection services in their areas. These communities are: Alachua, Hawthorne, High Springs and Micanopy. A fifth community, LaCrosse, is currently considering this arrangement.
Summary of Construction Standards
In the State of Florida, construction standards can he categorized as: (1) state promulgated and enforced; (2) state required locally enforced; and (3) optional local enforcement. Those standards falling within the first category deal generally with specific types of construction and/or facilities and, therefore, are limited in application.
The second category includes two codes, both of which apply to nearly all construction. The recently enacted Florida Building Codes Act not only requires that all political jurisdictions adopt and enforce one of several building codes by January 1, 1975, but also by January 1, 1977, will require the adoption and enforcement of a state promulgated series cf construction standards designed to achieve statewide uniformity in all requirements regulating construction activity. At the present time, only one community in Alachua County does not enforce a building code within its jurisdiction. Other communities, however, may have to amend their present codes before next January in order to meet the specific requirements of this legislation.
The second set of standards included in the "state required locally enforced" category are those model and state-developed codes pertaining to the design and construction of electrical and heating systems. The specific code designated by the State is the 1968 edition of the National Flectrical Code, published by the National Fire Protection Association. Two Alachua County communities (Waldo and LaCrosse) are not presently in compliance with this law.
The third category includes those construction standards often made a part of a community's comprehensive code program, but are not required by Florida state or federal law. This normally involves two "mechanical" codes, that isf one pertaining to general plumbing systems, and another to gas piping systems and appliance installation. Whereas eight of ten political jurisdictions in Alachua County are currently enforcing a plumbing code, only three have adopted a gas piping/appliance code. Table 1 depicts the codes presently enforced within each community.
In conclusion, essentially four types of problems have been uncovered by this investigation. First, a number of communities in Alachua County are not enforcing a comprehensive set of construction standards, namely building, plumbing, electrical and gas codes. Two communities, Waldo and LaCrosse, by not having adopted the National Flectrical Code, are presently at variance with Florida State Law.
Second, although most communities are utilizing the same model codes in terms of building, plumbing and electrical standards, several have not adopted the latest editions and/or amendments to these codes. These communities not
)0 4 r
0) 0 fa 0
:1 m -1
0-4 CLds .
Vr-~~1 V- rVr0) (U -4 (a- C4 dICU)V ul U u o V) :t W V) in
E-4 -4 (2) WC) WW ) WWE W
H) Q C) E V Q) F= Q) ) E V) Q E
$- r. l C r- U)
zH <~ z E-4 U
0 zr4 -4 0- 04
H) 4 0 (a cc m~ W
u >4 0z -4- Hi -40 -4
Z:) E- '-4 r- V4 w 4- w
0 z4 4 m 4 ON 4 4 4 a
V- Z) V4 () V- U -4 U V U ]
zu -I -400 a)4 14-W U- W U)-HC UW U2-q
-'-4 -4 Q Vi -4
to -4 (0-4 a m T I0 N -1 0 0 N 0 0., r r r C 4 4 '
4J0- J% W r- 4)
a ul- U). 14 (n
w) ON ~ Q 4 ) 4) WC)a
-4 aa r-(a'-
0. r- C
H (ON u
ri w 10
u a 0 0
'a ko X; E-4 U
U) (j) -4
4 r. Q) u 04 0
W .(u 4 $4 0
.C r-I Ora w
4-) -4 C 44 M '14
:3 04 Q) Q)
0 04 E 0).C
ul 4 fo 4J
u (n ro
rc r a E-4 0 0
9: al sz m 9 4.)
(a to (a
4-1 4-) 41 0
-1 U) (a u) cn U) -14 1 (n (n W
4J 41 4-1 10 4)
C: r- r 9: -1 $4
0) 4 QO 4 rU 0
(U a) E cu w > u ul
C ro a $4 w 4)
4j -A 41 1-4 4J r-A Q) k 4
3 r- :3 r- :3 r- ul V
0 m E 0 m E 0 m
w r-i (a V) -4 (a V -4
0 Q) 0
U 0 U)
41) (n u
talc %z 04
u u u 0) -1 U 41
-H -q -H 1-4 -4 44
-4 4 r- $4 r, w 1-4 W W44 4-4
(a 4-) aN 4- M 41 r- 0 4 0 0
u () () a,* 44 4-)
.o4 Q) a) r-4 -4
w -j >i 4-) M to
4J W 41 0 w u
U ra 4) 0
r-q a) >
(a -4 0 1 4)
r. 44 r. 44 44 U in V)
0-4 0-4 0 -4
10 H ra -4 ra
0 4J 0 41 0 4J
it E (a E it E rZ Z z :3 $4
4 0 41) 0
41 u 4 U)
tj) 4J 4J
-4 U) -r-i
ul 4j tz 04
$4 M V k M 4J 4 $4 u rri
(a r- 9: (o f- v (a to (a (L)
tri m a) 'o aN 41) V w u
r- -4 E r -4 E c V M IA 4
.14 to (a V ra r. r- c 0 0 0
,a 4J 4j 4J 0 41 0 0 '0 44
4 U) Q) U) (1) -4 U) -4 u w 0 z
4J V r- u 4)
r -4 U) 41
CQ 4 -4 4 -14 w
(1) 44 'tr Q 44 T a) Q) W 4 9:
.a -14 r- .9 -H r- X: a 4.) Q 4J -H
4.)100) 41 ro 0-1 41 m 4J Ln .14 w
::) 0 :3 0 1-4 ::j r- :3 ko r- -4 w Q
0 E 0 E 0 ON 0 C', :3 1-4 4
V) 1-4 U) -4 4 (a En
E 3 r.)
u U) C) 0
Jz u u
4) 0 w
z (n (n -H 01-1
0 CP 0 4J 44 M
)-1 4 u r :3
E-4 (a E-4 4) 4J
U >4 >1 (a u
En 04 w U) ril (a
cl fn 0 w V.
U) 0 r. a) 0 w
4 (ty 10 4
U -4 4-1
only lose a certain degree of uniformity in their codes, they furthermore do not provide themselves t-he benefit of those proven innovations in materials and techniques which may create substantial savings in costs of construction.
Third, two different model gas piping/appliance codes are being enforced within the county. Fourth and last is the nationally recognized problem involving the lack of uniform code interpretation and enforcement procedures.
Although the Florida Building Codes Act will have remedied the first three problems by January 1, 1977, that date is approximately two and one-half years away. Much time and money could be saved if positive action were to he taken prior to that time. Not only that, but to solve the fourth situation above first requires the elimination of the other three problems indicated.
As the title suggests, maintenance standards differ from construction standards in that their efforts are primarily focused on the preservation of buildings once construction is completed. Nevertheless, the overall objectives of both are the same, that is, the protection of the lives and property of citizens.
Although numerous sets of regulations promulgated at state and local levels of government could be included in this category (such as health and sanitation codes, safety codes and a number of codes already discussed in this chapter), one type of code stands apart from all others in terms of
its comprehensive approach and primary purpose of preventing the deterioration of structures. Such codes are referred to as "housing codes"--housing because they are primarily designed for the regulation of living conditions in residential structures.
Programs established for the purpose of providing for health and safety in housing in this country began in the 19th century. These programs were in response to identifying the fact that unsanitary housing was a major cause of illness and a breeding place of disease. The modern version of the housing code, however, did not come into being until the 1940's--with the first effort taking place in Baltimore, Maryland. While this first effort was confined mainly to a statement of intent, housing codes have developed over the years to where most now establish fairly detailed health and safety requirements covering three main areas of the structure: (1) the facilities supplied in a structure, that is, toilets, baths, sinks, etc.; (2) structural and sanitary maintenance, e.g., broken pipes, cracked walls, leaky roofs, etc.; and (3) usability and amenity of interior space, that is, light and ventilation, room sizes, occupancy ratios and so on. (National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American City, 1968, pp. 273-307).
As the mechanics of housing codes evolved, so did their role and function in the community. Spurred by passage of the major housing acts beginning in 1949. housing codes began to be increasingly used by communities both as "preventive maintenance" mechanisms and as enforcing instruments for the rehabilitation of substandard housing. However, as with other codes discussed in this report, both benefits and costs result with application. While this question has
been resolved in terms of most other codes, the debate over housing codes is still going on--not so much in terms of need, rather in terms of implementation.
As pointed out in a recent article printed in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners, a substantial amount of literature has been published over the past decade concerning housing codes and their enforcement. ("Municipal Housing Code Enforcement and Low-Income Tenants", Vol. 40, March, 1974, pp. 60-104). Several of the studies have been major research efforts designed in part to measure the overall effectiveness and impact of housing codes in communities. While recommendations for improving the situation vary, the consensus of opinion is that housing codes have not been an effective instrument in improving the quality and quantity of the nation's housing supply.
A number of reasons are cited by the studies beginning with the fact that most communities, especially small cities and rural areas, have not adopted housing codes. In the State of Florida, for example, a recent survey completed by the Department of Community Affairs revealed that only 12 of 67 counties and 127 of 405 cities had adopted housing codes. (Codes and Standards in Florida, 1974).
A second important reason cited is that most communities with housing codes enforce them on a "complaint only" basis. While this provides a measure of protection to renters--profided they can afford a subsequent increase in rent--it does not allow the code to function as a preventive maintenance mechanism. To do so requires a systematic code enforcement program involving regular inspection sweeps of the entire community with, perhaps, special emphasis given those areas
beginning to show signs of deterioration. As experience has shown, however, this alone cannot solve the problem. The major impediment to a successful program develops with lowincome owners and renters who cannot afford the costs of necessary improvements--be it in the form of direct costs of repair or higher costs of rent. The problem is further compounded if the structure is dilapidated and is subsequently condemned. Then the owner or renter is faced with the probability of having to relocate in higher cost housing. Based on these problems, most of the reports conclude that for housing codes to be truly effective, they must not only be accompanied by systematic code compliance programs, but also be accompanied by programs involving low-interest loans or grants, and rent subsidies or control.
It is this last requirement for effective housing code enforcement that has been most affected by the recent change in federal involvement in state and local housing problems. Although limited for the most part to federally designated "concentrated code enforcement" and "urban renewal" areas--a designation generally reserved for slum and other areas already highly deteriorated--a number of low-interest loan and grant programs have been sponsored in previous years by the federal goverment. As indicated in the introductory chapter, however, the present Administration is proposing a complete new approach regarding federal aid to state and local governments. This "revenue sharing" approach has not yet been fully implemented--nor is it certain that the special program proposed to replace the former community development programs will ever pass the Congress. 5 In the meantime,
5 This refers to the "Better Communities Act" discussed in Chapter Three of this report.
only those incomplete projects initiated in previous years are continuing to receive federal aid. Outside of these areas, however, the burden rests with state and local governments who, for the most part, do not have the necessary resources to adequately handle the problem.
In the State of Florida, the authority of local governments to adopt and enforce housing codes is provided by Chapters 125, 165/166 and other special acts relating to specific jurisdictions.
In Alachua County, only two communities have adopted housing codes. They are the City of Gainesville and the Town of Micanopy. Micanopy has adopted the 1969 edition of the Southern Standard Housinq Code, whereas the City of Gainesville operates under a self-developed code initially adopted in 1964. This code is considered by the federal government to be equivalent to the Southern Standard code. (Interviews with local officials, May, 1974).
Of the two communities, however, only Gainesville has established and is currently enforcing a systematic housing code compliance program. This program was begun in 1966 and has been funded entirely by the city since that time. While the program has achieved notable successes in both the prevention of deterioration and the rehabilitation of substandard housing units, local officials are hampered in their efforts by the same type of problems enumerated above with respect to the situation involving low-income owners and renters. (Interview with John Howze, Director of Housing Division, City of Gainesville, July, 1974).
The task of maintaining and upgrading the quality of housing is a continuous process. As reported in a recently completed study by the Department of Community Development, City of Gainesville, the percentage of substandard housing units in the city dropped from 15.9 percent in 1965 to 5.3 percent in 1972--a very admirable record and one which shows what housing code enforcement programs can do even without direct federal aid. Nevertheless, there is the remaining 5.3 percent considered substandard, plus another 11.1 percent of housing considered standard, but needing minor repairs which requires continued attention.
outside the City of Gainesville, however, the situation is much worse. Based on a survey completed by this agency in 1971-72, 32.2 percent of all housing units located in the other incorporated areas in the county were estimated to be dilapidated and another 22.5 percent were classified as "deteriorating"--leaving less than 50 percent considered as 11 sound". Due apparently in part to the large influx of new housing, the percentage of substandard housing in the unincorporated areas of the county was found to be much lower. (N.C.F.R.P.C.,, Housing Conditions, 1972).
Summary of Maintenance Standards
Maintenance standards, as defined in this report, are essentially preventive maintenance mechanisms. Housing codes are the only widely-used standards fitting this definition-and only really then if they are accompanied by a systematic code compliance program. To be completely effective at their task, however, housing code enforcement programs need help in the form of low-interest loan, grant and rent subsidy programs for low-income owners and renters.
In Alachua County, two of the jurisdictions have adopted housing codes--one model, the other self-developed. Only the City of Gainesville has also established a systematic housing code compliance program.
The overall quality of housing in the county varies from one jurisdiction to another, with the smaller incorporated areas having the highest percentages of substandard housing. Due to the inability of the private sector to meet the need for low-cost housing--and the unwillingness of the present federal administration to continue subsidized housing programs, the nation's existing housing supply must be preserved, repaired and rehabilitated to the greatest extent possible.
As evidenced by the City of Gainesville, a properly established and operated housing code and systematic code enforcement program can substantially improve the quality of an area's housing supply.
CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The preceding survey of housing-related codes., their basis in Florida law, and their present status of enforcement in Alachua County and municipalities has determined the following:
1. Development Controls Subdivision Regulations:
(a) that four of the ten political jurisdictions of
Alachua County have adopted subdivision regulations;
(b) that both major and minor differences exist in their
2. Development Controls Zoning:
(a) that six of the ten jurisdictions have adopted zoning
(b) these ordinances vary in their respective designations
3. That the State of Florida has adopted standards for the
purpose of regulating the following types of construction
and development activities and materials:
(a) hotel and restaurant construction;
(b) elevator construction;
(c) school building construction;
(d) fire safety;
(e) sewerage disposal facilities;
(f) water supply system;
(g) mobile home construction;
(h) factory-built housing;
(i) liquefied petroleum gas facilities;
(j) glass materials.
4. Building Code:
(a) that the State of Florida will require all counties
and municipalities to adopt and enforce one of several
model building codes by January 1, 1975; and
(b) that nine of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County
presently enforce a building code; and
(c) that all nine utilize the Southern Standard Building
Code; however, not all of tKe-muse the same edition
5. Electrical Code:
(a) that the State of Florida presently requires all
counties and municipalities to adopt and enforce
the National Electrical Code within their areas of
(b) that two of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County are
not currently enforcing this code, and therefore, are
in violation of Florida law, and
(c) that the other eight jurisdictions enforcing this code
utilize different editions.
6. Plumbing Code:
(a) that the State of Florida has established a plumbing
code, but it is not required to be enforced within
Alachua County; and
(b) that eight of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County
are currently enforcing a plumbing code anyway; and
(c) that all eight utilize the Southern Standard Plumbing
Code; however, different editions/amendments are enF-orced.
7. Gas Code:
(a) that three of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County
are enforcing a gas piping/gas appliance code; and
(b) that two of the three utilize the gas code developed
by the Southern Building Code Congress, but have adopted different amendments; whereas, the third
jurisdiction uses the code developed by the National
Fire Protection Association.
8. Code Enforcement:
(a) that four of the nine municipalities of Alachua County
presently contract with the county for construction code
(b) therefore, a total of five jurisdictions in Alachua
County have uniform codes and code enforcement.
9. Housing Code:
(a) that two of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County
have adopted a housing code; and
(b) that only one of the two has established a systematic
code compliance program for implementing the code.
Based on the above findings and recognizing that: 1) housing costs are rising at an increasingly rapid rate; 2) the need for maintaining and upgrading the existing housing stock is, therefore, even greater; and 3) housing-related codes and their enforcement can affect both the quality and quantity of an area's housing supply, it is recommended that a committee, having at least one representative from each of the ten jurisdictions of Alachua County, be established to consider joint action on the following items:
1. the elimination of all unnecessary differences in
subdivision regulation requirements, and the development of subdivision regulations for those communities
not presently having any.
2. the establishment of similar zone classifications and
zone requirements for all undeveloped border areas where to do so will not mis-represent either community's land
use plan; and the development of zoning ordinances for
those communities not presently having any.
3. the establishment of uniform construction codes (building, plumbing, electrical and gas) throughout Alachua
County; and establishing a method for adopting new
editions and amendments in order to benefit from technological advances made in the construction field.
4. The establishment of a uniform system of code enforcement throughout Alachua County. At least two alternatives exist: a single county-wide enforcement agency; and joint training sessions for all inspectors operating
within the county.
5. The adoption of housing codes and the establishment of
systematic code compliance programs in each of the
I APPENDIX A
I STATE OF FLORIDA
MINIMUM ELECTRICAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Chapter 553, Part II, Florida Statutes, the
following standards are adopted for the purpose of establishing minimum electrical standards for the state:
(1) The National Electrical Code, NFPA No. 70-1968.
I(2) Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., "Standard for
Electrical Lighting Fixtures, and Portable Lamps,' UL 153-1966
and UL 57-1967.
1 (3) Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc., "Standard for
Electric Signs," UL 48-1966.
(4) The regulations of the division of hotels and restaurants of the department of business regulation, applicable to emergency lighting, Florida Statute Section Number 509.211
(6) (g) and 509.211(7).
(5) NFPA No. 56-1968, Article 244, "Arrangements of
(6) Chapter 10 D-29 of the rules and regulations of the
division of health of the department of health and rehabilitative services, entitled "Nursing Homes and Related Facilities
I (7) The minimum standards for grounding of portable
electric equipment, chapter 8AS-2 as recommended by the
industrial safety section, bureau of workmen's compensation,
division of labor and employment opportunities, department
(8) "Essential Electrical System for Fospitals,' NFPA
B I B L 1 0 G R A P H Y
Bureau of Codes and Standards and Bureau of Planning and
Research, Department of Community Affairs, State of
Florida. Codes and Standards for Florida. Tallahassee,
Florida: Department of Community Affairs, 1974.
Department of Community Development, City of Gainesville.
Qualitative Analysis of Housing Conditions. 1973.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD Newsletter. Vol. 5, No. 16 (April, 1974).
Gainesville Sun. "Efforts to Stimulate Housing Aren't
Succeeding"', July 21, 1974.
Goodman, William I. and Freund, Eric C., eds. Principles
and Practice of Urban Planning. 4th ed. Washington,
D.C.: International City Managers' Association, 1968.
Hartman, Chester W.; Kessler, Robert P.; and LeGates,
Richard T. "Municipal Housing Code Enforcement and
Low-Income Tenants", Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, XL (March, 1974), 90-104.
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.
"Section 23 Public Housing Leasing Program", Journal
of Housing, No. 2 (February, 1974), 73-74.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Initial
Housing Element. Gainesville, Florida. 1971.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Housing
Conditions. Gainesville, Florida. 1972.
North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Housing,
1973. Gainesville, Florida. 1973.
Report of Reubin Askew, Governor of the State of Florida to
the Florida Legislature. The First Annual Report on
State Housing Goals. 1973.
Report of Reubin Askew, Governor of the State of Florida to
the Florida Legislature. Housing in Florida, 1974.
Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems to the
Congress and to the President of the United States,
Paul H. Douglas, Chairman, Building The American City.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968.
Report of the President's Committee on Urban Housing, Edgar
F. Kaiser, Chairman. A Decent Home. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1968.
Report prepared by The Office of the Governor, The Governor's
Task Force on Housing and Community Development, and the
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. Housing
in Florida. 5 Vols. Tallahassee: Department of Community