OPPAGA reports identify promising state and local affordable‑housing strategies and common barriers

Alex Regalado, staff director with the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), briefed the Senate Committee on Community Affairs on two statutory evaluations of affordable housing.

Regalado said OPPAGA surveyed housing agencies in all 50 states, reviewed more than 1,000 programs and identified 13 innovative programs in other states. He told senators that OPPAGA rated three programs as having high potential for Florida implementation: Connecticut’s incentive housing zone program (local incentive zones for mixed‑income development), an Illinois strategic partnership program that links health care providers to housing development for technical assistance, and New York’s ADU (accessory dwelling unit) support programs. Regalado said program data for some recent initiatives was limited because the programs had been recently implemented.

Why it matters: the review was one of three evaluations required under the Live Local Act. OPPAGA’s assessment is intended to help lawmakers decide what statutory or programmatic changes could be scaled in Florida.

Regalado also presented OPPAGA’s review of local government housing policies using SHIP (State Housing Initiatives Partnership) reporting and a survey of local governments. He said SHIP‑eligible local governments reported spending $250 million in the fiscal years 2017–18 through 2019–20 period; counties accounted for 69% of those expenditures and municipalities 21%.

OPPAGA’s county and municipal survey (44 counties and 170 municipalities responded) found that common local strategies included encouraging mixed‑income projects, expedited permitting, flexible zoning and owner‑occupied rehabilitation. Respondents rated programs that leveraged local and state funds, prioritized rehabilitation and used public‑private partnerships as among the most effective. Regalado said interlocal cooperation (counties and municipalities working jointly) was used by 44% of respondents and more often by counties than municipalities. Reported barriers to cooperation and housing production included high land and construction costs, local opposition and insufficient funding.

Regalado summarized statewide housing burden statistics cited from the University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing Studies: in 2022 about 1.4 million households were spending more than 50% of income on housing and many cost‑burdened households are concentrated in a small group of counties, including Miami‑Dade.

OPPAGA will publish a third required evaluation later this year assessing Florida’s housing programs for consistency with the state strategy; Regalado said that report will be available Dec. 15.

Committee members asked technical questions about the data. Senator Stan McLean asked whether student housing skews cost‑burden statistics in Alachua and Leon counties; Regalado said the Shimberg Center and census sources underlie the county estimates and that he would follow up with more detail. Several senators requested copies of OPPAGA slides and the full reports; Regalado said OPPAGA will provide the reports and that the evaluations are on a five‑year cycle.

Ending: Regalado closed by noting that while Florida has multiple programs and local strategies in place, OPPAGA’s reviews show a range of policy tools with different levels of administrative cost and implementation complexity. The committee moved on to other business without taking formal votes on the reports.