Inside Alachua County’s code chaos
How a rogue building official is flouting state law – and costing homeowners
By Skip Foster, Red Tape Florida
The inspection dispute that unfolded on a jobsite in Alachua County wasn’t an isolated flare-up. It was a window into a system that has drifted far from what Florida law requires.
Under state statute, a licensed private provider becomes the inspector of record. Yet Alachua County routinely sends its own inspectors anyway — and often shows up without the private provider present, issues findings, cancels inspections, and tells contractors they may not proceed until the county signs off.
This is more than duplication. It is the county substituting its own authority for the one the Legislature created, and the result is predictable: delays, confusion, and costs ultimately borne by the homeowner.
One case illustrates the problem. The pattern tells the real story.
Florida’s Legislature rewrote the law to give property owners a choice. They can use government inspectors or hire licensed private-sector experts who must meet equal or higher professional standards. Private Providers carry personal liability, carry stronger licensing obligations, and often have deeper expertise in individual trades than the government staff reviewing their work.
But in Alachua County, that choice has become an illusion. When property owners hire private providers, the county inserts itself anyway, rewrites the process, duplicates inspections, invents new requirements, and demands that contractors bow to a shadow system that appears designed to make private providers’ work slower, harder, and less viable.
And the man driving that system, Building Official Dan Gargas, has a history that makes the pattern difficult to dismiss.
In 1999, the Record-Courier newspaper in Ohio reported that Gargas had been fired twice as a building director in Streetsboro. In a formal termination letter, the mayor cited complaints from the construction trades, complaints from the public, codification errors, unjustified fee increases, budget disputes, and what she called “an unacceptable lack of accountability.”
Gargas has since hopped around – Monroe County, Fla., Lakeland, perhaps other areas – with the circumstances of his departure unclear.
Regardless, the echoes today of his time in Ohio are hard to miss.
The county that doesn’t want private providers to succeed
Florida Statute 553.791 is clear: when a private provider is engaged, that provider becomes the inspector of record. The local building official may audit, but may not duplicate inspections. The goals are efficiency, competency and accountability.
Alachua County has decided otherwise.
County leadership has invented a new category called “Private Provider Inspection Confirmation” — a phrase that appears nowhere in the statute. On paper, it sounds like simple verification. In practice, these “confirmations” are full duplicate inspections. County inspectors show up unannounced, redo the work the private provider already performed, issue correction notices without sharing them with the private provider, and tell contractors they must wait for county approval even when state law says otherwise.
The message is unmistakable: if you choose a private provider, Alachua County will inspect you again anyway. And again. And again.
At that point, why would any contractor risk the delays, confusion, or double-jeopardy created by a county that simply refuses to accept the legitimacy of private-sector expertise?
And remember, these added costs and delays eventually are passed down to homeowners.
The notice trap: how Alachua County rewrites state law by portal glitch
The Legislature eliminated the old rule requiring next-day notice by 2 p.m. Private providers now must simply give an approximate date and time of inspection.
Alachua County has rejected that.
They refuse email notifications.
They require scheduling through a county portal that doesn’t allow same-day appointments.
They claim the statute somehow forbids same-day notice even though the text explicitly allows it.
The result is predictable: contractors get blamed for “improper notice,” even when the only impediment is the county’s own system.
The law gives flexibility. The county erases it. And private providers take the hit.
Withheld reports and one-sided communications
In multiple cases, Alachua County has sent inspection findings directly to contractors — listing deficiencies, cancellations, or demands for reinspection — while failing to send those same reports to the private provider responsible for the job.
This breaks their own written policy. It also sabotages the provider’s ability to resolve issues promptly.
When the county tells a contractor “you may not proceed without approval from Alachua County,” after the private provider has already approved the work, the county is not protecting safety. It is undermining the statutory authority of the private provider.
This is discrimination through paperwork.
The county invents permits to stall jobs
During one visit in November, the county abruptly informed a contractor that the project required two new permits: one for lighting and one for the dumpster on-site.
The lighting permit was an error. The dumpster permit was an invention.
The dumpster was shown on the approved plans. No such permit requirement appears in Alachua County’s code. The public inspection log does not show a visit that would have identified it earlier. Yet this new requirement appeared after two unannounced site visits and was delivered as a condition of proceeding.
This is regulation as improvisation, not law.
A registration system the county ignores
Florida statute allows local governments to create a one-time registration system to verify a private provider’s license and insurance. Once registered, the provider should not have to re-submit documents for every permit.
Alachua County denies permits anyway, claiming the certificate of insurance is “missing” even after registration is complete.
This is friction for friction’s sake — another attempt to discourage private-sector participation.
Audit authority rewritten by semantics
Florida law limits a building official to four audits per year per private provider — and only after the building department audits its own staff for two consecutive quarters.
Alachua County appears to have completely skipped the self-audit requirement. Instead, they conduct multiple visits to the same job within days and label them “code checks,” claiming they are not audits and thus not subject to statutory limits.
Calling an audit a “code check” does not make it legal.
It simply exposes the motive: keep private providers under constant pressure until they leave the county or stop competing.
The qualifications question: who is actually the most competent?
Private provider inspectors are often more qualified than the county staff reviewing their work.
Many private providers:
- hold multiple state licenses
- have decades of trade experience
- carry personal liability for their work
- maintain stricter continuing-education requirements
- undergo direct oversight from DBPR and state licensing boards
Many county inspectors:
- do not hold equivalent trade licenses
- have less recent field experience
- face minimal personal liability
- are shielded by government employment protections
- may audit work they are not technically qualified to perform
This is the root of the hostility.
The private sector threatens the county’s monopoly.
The county responds by creating rules designed to push private providers out.
A statewide problem? No. An Alachua County problem.
CT Solutions works in 181 jurisdictions across Florida.
Only Alachua County behaves this way.
Citrus County plays by the statute. In fact, most counties welcome private providers because they ease workloads and accelerate construction.
Alachua County treats them as an enemy.
And when a building official, once fired for “unjustified fee increases” and “complaints from the trades,” begins redefining inspections and inventing permit hurdles, it’s worth asking whether history is repeating itself — and whether contractors and property owners are paying the price.