508 20 10383 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/6c7906b4ac023ffedca8420e73b1fec5.pdf 6a086aa9f98a473bfde11f675bd68622 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CITY OF ATLANTA /~ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILD~S 800 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2 -4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 December 9, 1969 Edwin W. Hartin, Esquire Americ n Consul General 26 Garden Road Hong Kong, China Dear Sir : It i my plea urea to writ you concerning Addy Wing-Hy Chan who is a valued employ in the Department of Inspector of Bqildings, City of Atlanta, G orgia. Mr. Chan's duties h ve brought him into close contact with woll a with nm . t department heads of the City From my per onal observation I c n unhesitatingly r pott that he 1 a capable and conec1 ntioue employee, one who ba o tned tb confidence of hie superiors and his f llow wofk r • my office as Gov rnment. real pleasure to learn of h1s tnarriag nd it It has b n ie my hop t t the p.roce se required for 1 suing a visa fo:r his nted aa exp ditiously . s possible in order bride c n be. impl that ah can return with him. Sincerely, Ivan Allen, Jr., Mayor City of Atlant, Georgi � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document JIC. i! a CITY OF ATLANTA | OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILD GS 800 CITY HALL TEL. JA. 2-4463 EXT. 321 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 December 9, 1969 Edwin W. Martin, Esquire American Consul General 26 Garden Road Hong Kong, China Dear Sir: It is my pleasure to write you concerning Addy Wing-Hay Chan who is a valued employee in the Department of Inspector of Buildings, City ef Atlanta, Georgia. Mx. Chan's duties have brought him into close contact with my office as well as with most department heads of the City Government. From my personal observation I can unhesitatingly report that he is a capable and conscientious employee, one who has earned the confidence of his superiors and his fellow workers. It has been a real pleasure to learn of his marriage and it is wy hope that the processes required for issuing a visa for his bride can be implemented as expeditiously as possible in order that she can return with him. Sincerely, Ivan Alien, Jr., Mayor City of Atlanta, Georgia  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 60 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/e0670bdef7e1526c335e324b73baccbe.pdf 7dd8285094387a03dcc6046f73108ba5 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CITY OF TLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P . E ., R . A . October 8, 1969 INSPECTOR OF BUILDI N GS CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E . ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM TO FROM Dan E. Sweat, W.R. Wofford RE 703 Myrtle Street, N. E. After receiving your memorandum concerning the complaint by Mr. Gordon Johnson that basement apartments were being installed at the above address without a permit, I have made an investigation and find that the owner, Mr s. Charlotte Patterson , secured a building permit on September 30, 1969, to ~ter the basement by installing a den. There is no evidence of installation of an additional unit in the basement of this structure. Required inspections will be made as work progresses to verify compliance with Building and Zoning regulations. • � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R. WOFFORD, P.E., R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS October 8, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM TO : Dan E. Sweat, Jr. FROM : W. R. Wofford RE : 703 Myrtle Street, N. E. After receiving your memorandum concerning the complaint by Mr. Gordon Johnson that basement apartments were being installed at the above address without a permit, I have made an investigation and find that the owner, Mrs. Charlotte Patterson, secured a building permit on September 30, 1969, to oo the basement by installing a den. There is no evidence of installation of an additional unit in the basement of this structure. Required inspections will be made as work progresses to verify compliance with Building and Zoning regulations.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 59 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/47bfadaab510c8f22cb2f0538f96c531.pdf ac745467f34e5ef7354472a450a470da Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. Octob ~ 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM Toi Pete C owell From: George Berry Ple · se look ov r th · ttach · d in vi w of writing up something in article form on the gener subject of a federal program stimulating action. This demolition grant progr m ijUppos dly gav th City money to demoU h un ound tru.c:turee . In actual fact, mo t of th houses were demolished by the own r when lt became pp rent that th City was going to move in. Yo u might r s rch th origin l 1 w · nd th original progr m. guidelines • • . interview ome of th , p opl in the building d . pa:,tment that h ndled the program • . • tc. ·rhis is a good examp1 - of a progr m that fitd not sp nd 11 of its llot d fWlde or ccornpli h it obj ctive wh l'l look d at from purely " balance sh t " point of vi w but in ctual f ct mor th n got th job done b c · u e it c us p opl to ct on th lr o~. T hink bout this OB:j & nd w U talk bout it. 1 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document - tee e October 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM To: Pete Ceowell From: George Berry Please look over the attached in view of writing up something in article form on the general subject of a federal program stimulating action. This demolition grant program supposedly gave the City money to demolish unsound structures. In actual fact, most of the houses were demolished by the owners when it became apparent that the City was going to move in. You might research the original law and the original program guidelines - » « interview some of the people in the building department that handled the program... etc. This is a good example of a program that flid not spend all of ite alloted funds or accomplish its objectives when looked at from a purely ‘balance sheet'' point of view but in actual —— than got the job done because it cause people to act on their ‘ Think about this and we'll talk about it. GBija  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 58 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/941393a90c4d2d2368802ab459c1fa6f.pdf 2de0bc372efde9b43d2ec9398014f6ab Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P .E . , R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS October 1, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS Memorandum To From Dan E. s~;:143.215.248.55 ,J W.R. W o ~ In order to implement the new Housing Code Compliance Program, effective October 1, 1969, we will need the additional personnel requested in the 1970 Budget, as follows: 2 Typist Clerks 2 Housing Code Inspectors I 2 Housing Code Inspectors III (Supervisors) 1 Office Manager. To assure that the Housing Code Compliance program is as effective as possible, I wish you would advise the Personnel Department of the pressing needs for the above additional staff. As you know , our program will step up compliances from the present 12 , 000 per year to 18, 000, an increase of 50% over last year's activities. • � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 WILLIAM R. WOFFORD, P.E., R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS October 1, 1969 CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS Memorandum To : Dan E. Sweat From : W. R. Wofford In order to implement the new Housing Code Compliance Program, effective October 1, 1969, we will need the additional personnel requested in the 1970 Budget, as follows: 2 Typist Clerks 2 Housing Code Inspectors I 2 Housing Code Inspectors III (Supervisors) 1 Office Manager. To assure that the Housing Code Compliance program is as effective as possible, I wish you would advise the Personnel Department of the pressing needs for the above additional staff. As you know, our program will step up compliances from the present 12,000 per year to 18,000, an increase of 50% over last year's activities.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 57 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/df6452605e181425042e7f1a80f177cb.pdf 0685bbbd8aa0260bb654bf44c746780c Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CITY OF A.TLANTA. CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Chief Administrative Officer MRS. LINDA E . PRICE, Ex ecut ive Secretary October 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor All e n FROM : D an E. S wea t pz___ D o you w ant m e t o push this? DESJ r : sm � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document October 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Allen FROM: Dan E. Sweat a Do you want me to push this? DESJr:sm CITY HALL ATLANTS, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 IVAN ALLEN, JR., MAYOR DAN E. SWEAT, JR., Chief Administrative Officer MRS. LINDA E. PRICE, Executive Secretary  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 56 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/925ec08196a9c8d3d32bc807cdad9237.pdf 0fd10249ec5cde743bfdb77a39d058e7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. CITY OF ATLANTA OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 September 25 , 1969 WILLIAM R . WOFFORD, P.E ., R . A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHARLES M. SMITH , E.E . A S ST. INS PECTOR OF BU ILDI NGS • MEMORANDUM To : Mr. Dan E. Sweat , Jr., . Director of Governmental Liaison From: Mr , W. R. Wofford , Building Offi ~ Subject: Demolition Grant No. Ga . M-1 Attached herewith is information re lative to our Demolition Grant Program. As soon as a financial statement is prepared by the Office of Director of Finance where these records are kept, I will forward it to you. In order that you may have a complete picture of the Demolition Grant Program, I have included more detailed information than requested. It can be seen from the report, after owners were notified and hearings held, many owners elected to demolish their own houses, thus relieving the City of this task. Owners of the 282 houses progrannned to be demolished in the Demolition Grant Area were notified of the City's intention to demolish each house involved should they fail to do so. I would like to point out that under "In Rem" authority, the City has demolished houses outside of the Demolition Grant Area and placed liens on the property for the demolition costs involved. We, therefore, are able to fully recover the cost of demolition whether or not the house is in a Demolition Grant Area. WRW:gs �On August 23, 1966, application was made to HUD for a Demolition Grant. On November 11, 1966 the contract was executed, and our program dates from that time. At that time the Demolition Grant Area comprised approx imately the Eastern 2/3 of what is now our Model Cities Area, and it was planned to demolish 157 structur es during the Grant Program. Ex perience showed that while the number of demolitions were proceeding about as planned, voluntary compliance by owners was reducing the number demolished under contract drastically, and that the funds allocated were not being used at the rate anticipated. Theref ore, in March 1968 an amendment was proposed and accepted on May 1, 1968 increasing the Grant Area to about l/7th of the City in the southe a st section. The number of structures to be demolished was increased to 282 . Since that time our rate of pr ogress has been accelerated, but the ratio of owner demolitions t o Gr ant f und demolitions has remained essentially the s ame. For ex ample the total demolit ions in the a rea dur ing the Gr ant period is 224. Of thes e, the owner s have volunta rily demolished 163, while the City has only h ad to demolish 61 . We feel that this r atio is a desirable thing from t h e st andpoint of public r ela tions, since it minimizes dispute, legal complica t ions, and advers e publicity . I t sh ou l d be poi n ted ou t t hat in planning this Pr ogram no adequat e pr ovi sion or a llowanc e f or owner demolit ions wa s include d . For th i s r e a son the f unds actua l ly spent a re l e s s than tha t pr ovided under the Gr ant . The followi n g is a compl ete breakd own of our pr ogres s as of Se pt ember 22 , 1969. 1. To be demol i sh ed Tot al 157 2. 282 3. Re sidential 141 To be demoli sh ed Total Init i a l e s t i mate 224 Number of Uni t s 203 Revis ed Estimate Residentia l 256 Residential 206 Mi xed 11 5 Ac t ually demoli shed Tot al Non- Residentia l Non- Re s i dential 12 Mixed Numbe r of Unit s 14 363 Mixed Number of Un its 7 312 Cumul ative Total Non- Re sidential 11 �Total 163 Residential Total 61 Non-Residential 148 8 Number of Units Mixed 219 7 At Project Expense Demolished 5. Residential Non-Residential 3 58 Mixed Number of Un!i:ts 0 93 Mixed Number of Units Remaining of Contract 60 Total 58 Residential Non-Residential 1 50 51 7 Now in process in Grant Ar ea 7. Total Residential 36 32 Non-Residential Number of Units 48 4 Balance - 8. Total 9o Owner's Expense Demolished 4. 22 Residentia l Non-Re sidential -18 -4 Number of Units -3 Structur es Repaired (e stimated)'l'( Total 75 Residential 72 Non-Residentia l 3 Statement: Total estimated Demolitions under Grant, 282 - Total demolished to date 224 Active cases 36 Repaired (estimate) 75 335 Total 282 53 We feel these should be counted as they were included in the planning count, but repaired by owner. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document rt ( . \Y r + = f \ “y f FAN . i 4 ae | il ff s-\ 1 LY AE ON if OFFICE OF INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS 800 CITY HALL Atlanta, Georgia 30303 September 25, 1969 WILLIAM R. WOFFORD, P.E., R.A. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS CHARLES M. SMITH, E.E. ASST. INSPECTOR OF BUILDINGS MEMORANDUM To: Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr., Director of Governmental Liaison From: Mr. W. R. Wofford, Building orttetay Subject: Demolition Grant No. Ga. M-1 Attached herewith is information relative to our Demolition Grant Program. As soon as a financial statement is prepared by the Office of Director of Finance where these records are kept, I will forward it to you. In order that you may have a complete picture of the Demolition Grant Program, I have included more detailed information than requested. It can be seen from the report, after owners were notified and hearings held, many owners elected to demolish their own houses, thus relieving the City of this task. Owners of the 282 houses programmed to be demolished in the Demolition Grant Area were notified of the City's intention to demolish each house involved should they fail to do so. I would like to point out that under "In Rem" authority, the City has demolished houses outside of the Demolition Grant Area and placed liens on the property for the demolition costs involved. We, therefore, are able to fully recover the cost of demolition whether or not the house is in a Demolition Grant Area. WRWigs On August 23, 1966, application was made to HUD for a Demolition Grant. On November 11, 1966 the contract was executed, and our program dates from that time. At that time the Demolition Grant Area comprised approximately the Eastern 2/3 of what is now our Model Cities Area, and it was planned to demolish 157 structures during the Grant Program. Experience showed that while the number of demolitions were proceeding about as planned, voluntary compliance by owners was reducing the number demolished under contract drastically, and that the funds allocated were not being used at the rate anticipated. Therefore, in March 1968 an amendment was proposed and accepted on May 1, 1968 increasing the Grant Area to about 1/7th of the City in the south- east section. The number of structures to be demolished was increased to 282. Since that time our rate of progress has been accelerated, but the ratio of owner demolitions to Grant fund demolitions has remained essentially the same. For example the total demolitions in the area during the Grant period is 224. Of these, the owners have voluntarily demolished 163, while the City has only had to demolish 61. We feel that this ratio is a desirable thing from the standpoint of public relations, since it minimizes dispute, legal complications, and adverse publicity. It should be pointed out that in planning this Program no adequate provision or allowance for owner demolitions was included. For this reason the funds actually spent are less than that provided under the Grant. The following is a complete breakdown of our progress as of September 22, 1969. ies To be demolished - Initial estimate Total Residential Non-Residential Mixed Number of Units 157 141 5 7 eee 2. To be demolished - Revised Estimate Total Residential Non-Residential Mixed Number of Units 282 256 12 14 363 3, Actually demolished - Cumulative Total Total Residential Non-Residential Mixed Number of Units 224 206 1L 7 312 4, Demolished - Owner's Expense Total Residential Non-Residential Mixed Number of Units 163 148 8 7 219 5. Demolished - At Project Expense Total Residential Non-Residential Mixed Number of Untts 61 58 3 0 93 6. Remaining of Contract Total Residential Non-Residential Mixed Number of Units 58 50 1 7 51 7. Now in process in Grant Area Total Residential Non-Residential Number of Units 36 32 4 48 8. Balance - Total Residential Non-Residential Number of Units - 22 -18 -4 =3 9. Structures Repaired (estimated)* Total Residential Non-Residential 75 72 3 Statement: Total estimated Demolitions under Grant, 282 - Total demolished to date 224 Active cases 36 Repaired (estimate) 75 Total 335 282 53 * We feel these should be counted as they were included in the planning count, but repaired by owner.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 55 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/4facefd05073da3db967c28a36c7d308.pdf 8cdb31ca1d3ef5d02306565a5a1bd781 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ROUTE SLIP TO: FROM: George Berry D For your information D Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. - LJ Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 2 5 - 19 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Office of lhe’ Mayor ROUTE SLIP TO: Fite. Crntsae ~fo% Shino, FROM: George Berry (_] For your information {_] Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. (| Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 25-19  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 54 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/4945f2273b46f7525df0d7759c78f88e.pdf d2cb8d06807a8e1897c7b57160e8444c Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 53 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/91030310c4cb02132c13e02adfca50e8.pdf d8cd085b2c2b3f2ca0e2391fb7778a4b Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND Summary of Provisions with r espect t o Credit for Prior Se r v i ce Sec. 11.1.29 Credit i s allowe d fo r the years of actual service rendered by an o ffi cer or employee of a municipality or a teacher or employee of a county or independent school system when such has been merged with the Ci ty of Atlanta. Such person must pay into the f und the percentage of his monthly salary as h e woul d have paid had he been employed by the City o f At l anta during the period of time for whi ch c r edi t is claimed. The sum must be paid within 24 months. Sec. 11 . 1 . 30 An o f ficer or employee when transferred from one de par tment to another is entitled to become a member of the pension fund of the department to which he is transferred and to receive credit for his year s of service. He must pay into the pension fun d of the departmen t to which he is transferred the amount of premiums he would have paid into said fund if he had been a member of the department for the number of years he claims credit for servi ce. He can have transferred from the pension fun d which he leaves the amount he had paid into such fund·. Se c . 11.1.31 Upon the transfer of an employee or officer from e i ther Fulton or DeKalb Counties to the City of At lan t a, there shall be paid into the pension fund of the City an amount equal to that which was paid i n t o the county fu~d by such officer or empl oyee as well as the matching fund required to be paid i n to the fund by the county authorities. The emp l oyee or officer received credit for his prior service wi t h the county. Sec. 11 . 1. 35 Th is section deals with the transfer of employees under t he Plan of Improvement and provides that such employee shall receive credit for prior service upon paying into the pension fund the amount of contribution he would have made had he been a member of the fund during the years for which credit is sought. This amount bears interest at 3% per annum and must be paid in 50 equal instalments . Sec. 11.1. 36 This section provides the same benefits on the t ransfer of an employee from the City to the Count y. Sec. 11.1.36 .1 This cover s the transfer of a golf profess i onal fr om the City to the County and provides for credit for prior service upon payment of the amount the employee would have paid plus matching funds. �Sec. 11.1. 37 This section i~ lengthy and involved. It deals with County employees, County school district teachers and employees, and employees of the City of Atlanta. It further deals with these employees who have not been transferred and who were not allowed, at the time of the transfer, credit for all of their service with the government from which they were transferred. It provides for the transfer of matching funds and for the payment of the employees contribution. It covers the situation where an employee was not a member of the pension fund of the government from which he was transferred. Sec. 11.1.40 If an officer· or employee was on the payroll of the City and in good standing at the time he is inducted into the armed forces, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and when there is at the time of such induction an actual conflict or such induction is mandatory, and if the employee has not voluntarily extended his term of service beyond the termination of the conflict or beyond the time when he could retire from such service, then the employee, provided he did not receive a dishonorable discharge, is entitled, upon his return t o the service of the City, for the time spent in the armed forces. The employee must make the same contributions to the pension fund for the time served in the armed f orces as he would have made if he had been in the active service of the City. The contributions must be made in equal monthly instalments within a period of time equal to the time served in the .armed forces. Sec. 11 . 1 .41 The foregoing sec tion is derived from a general act of local application. Sec. 11.1.41 amends specifically the pension acts. It also covers credit f or military service when the employee, prior t o such service, was an employee of the City. The employee's contributions nrust not be in arr earage f or more than 90 days and the employee further has the privilege of paying all ·of the back payments when or before he returns to his employment with the City. Sec. 11.1.42 This section extends the coverage of allowance of prior credit f or military service to specifically cover the Korean conflict and is an amendment to Sec. 11.1 .40. The employee must have been employed by the City prior to his militar y service. However, this section relieves him from making any contributions to the pension fund for the period of time during which he was in the military service. �Sec. 11.1.43 Credit is allowed to a person who was previously employed by the State of Georgia or a political subdivision thereof within Fulton or DeKalb Counties. The person must have at least 5 years continuous service with the City before becoming eligible for the credit. The person must pay into the pension fund an amount equal to that which he would have paid into the fund had he been an employee of the City during such time and the payments must be made over 36 month,. The amount of credit for prior service is limited to 10 years. Sec. 11.1.45 This section grants credit to a person who, prior to his employment with the City, was employed by the United States Government to perform duties within Fulton or DeKalb Counties. He is entitled to credit under the conditions of Sec. 11.1.43. Additionally, this section also allows credit for service to persons who were given a special military leave to do wartime duty in the American Red Cross. Sec. 11.1.46 This section deals with credit for prior service for teachers in a public school system or in a public or private college or university by which they were employed prior to employment with the City. The maximum credit allowed is 10 years. The employee must have been employed by the City for a period of 5 years before being eligible for credit. The teacher must pay into the pension fund an amount equal to that which the teacher would have been required to pay had the teacher been an employee of the City. the back payments bear interest at 6% per annum. In addition, the teacher must pay a sum equalirthe amount of matching funds which the City would have paid into the fund had the teacher be.en employed by the City during the time for which prior credit is sought. Sec. 11.1.46.1 This section extends credit for prior teaching, granted to teachers in the section above, to all officers and employees employed by the City, who may have been teachers in the past. Sec. 11 . 1.48 This section allows credit to employees who, prior to their employment with the City, were members of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia. Credit is allowed for a full year for each year's membership in the General Assembly. �Sec. 11.1.49 Employees of the Board of Education connected with the operation of its cafeteria, who were previously employed in the private operation of such cafeteria are allowed credit for the prior service with the private operation of the cafeteria upon paying into the pension fund the amount such employee would have paid during the time of his employment with the private operation of the cafeteria. This payment must be made over 36 months. FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND Sec. 11.2 .19 These -provisions are substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.43 of the'Gen~ral Employees Pension Fundo Sec. 11.2.22 This section is substantially the same as that of 11.1.30 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11.2.23 This section deals with the transfer of any member of a fire department from Fulton or DeKalb County to the City of Atlanta. The transferred employee is entitled to full credit for the years of service while in the fire department of the county. It is required that there be paid into the pension fund of the City an amount equal to that amount paid into the county pension fund by the county employee and an equal amount to represent the fund required to be paid into the county pension fund by the particular county. Sec. 11.2.24 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.2.25, set forth below. Sec. 11.2.25 ~ This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11 .1.40 of the General Employees Pension Fund with respect to credit for time in military service. Sec. 11.2.26 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1. 42 of the General Employees Pension Fund which extends credit for military service to include the Korean conflict and subsequent thereto. Sec. 11. 2. 27 This section provides that members o f the firedepartment who are on appr9ved military leave ·'-: �--·-c- - - .; from active service and employment, may receive credit toward retirement by making the same contributions to the pension fund that they would have made had they been in active employment service. The contribution is to be paid within 36 months after reassignment to active duty with the City. This section provides that no credit will be allowed to any member who voluntarily re-enlists in the military service· after the end of his first leave for military service unless such person is granted an additional military leave. POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND Sec. 11.3.17 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.43 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11. 3. 23 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.30 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11.3.24 This section deals with the transfer of a member of the police department of Fulton or DeKalb Counties to the City of Atlanta, and is substantially the same as Sec. 11.2.23 of the Firemen's · Pension Fund. Se C • 11-. 3 . 25 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.40 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Sec. 11.3.26 This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.42 of the General Employees Pension Fund. Se~. 11.3. 27 This section is substantially tlhe same as Sec. 11.2.27 of the Firemen's Pension Fund. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND Summary of Provisions with respect to Credit for Prior Service sec. 1.1.29 - Credit is allowed for the years of actual service rendered by an officer or employee of a municipal-. ity or a teacher or employee of a county or inde- pendent school system when such has been merged with the City of Atlanta. Such person must pay into the fund the percentage of his monthly salary as he would have paid had he been employed by the City of Atlanta during the period of time for which credit is claimed. The sum must be paid within 24 months. Sec. 11.1.30 - An officer or employee when transferred from one department to another is entitled to become a mem- ber of the pension fund of the department to which he is transferred and to receive credit for his years of service. He must pay into the pension fund of the department to which he is transferred the amount of premiums he would have paid into said fund if he had been a member of the depart- ment for the number of years he claims credit for service. He can have transferred from the pension fund which he leaves the amount he had paid into such fund. Sec. 11.1.31 - Upon the transfer of an employee or officer from either Fulton or DeKalb Counties to the City of Atlanta, there shall be paid into the pension fund of the City an amount equal to that which was paid into the county fund by such officer or em- ployee as well as the matching fund required to be paid into the fund by the county authorities. employee or officer received credit for his prior service with the county. Sec. 11.1.35 - This section deals with the transfer of employees under the Plan of Improvement and provides that such employee shall receive credit for prior ser- vice upon paying into the pension fund the amount of contribution he would have made had he been a member of the fund during the years for which credit is sought. This amount bears interest at 3% per annum and must be paid in 50 equal instal- ments, Sec. 11.1.36 - This section provides the same benefits on the transfer of an employee from the City to the County. Sec. 11.1.36.1 - This covers the transfer of a golf professional from the City to the County and provides for cred- it for prior service upon payment of the amount the employee would have paid plus matching funds.  Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec, 111.37 11.1.40 11.1.41 11.1.42 This section is lengthy and involved. It deals with County employees, County school district teachers and employees, and employees of the City of Atlanta. It further deals with these employees who have not been transferred and who were not allowed, at the time of the transfer, credit for all of their service with the govern- ment from which they were transferred. It pro- vides for the transfer of matching funds and for the payment of the employees contribution. It covers the situation where an employee was not a member of the pension fund of the government from which he was transferred. If an officer or employee was on the payroll of the City and in good standing at the time he is inducted into the armed forces, either voluntarily or involuntarily, and when there is at the time of such induction an actual conflict or such induc- tion is mandatory, and if the employee has not voluntarily extended his term of service beyond the termination of the conflict or beyond the time when he could retire from such service, then the employee, provided he did not receive a dis- honorable discharge, is entitled, upon his returm to the service of the City, for the time spent in the armed forces. The employee must make the same contributions to the pension fund for the time served in the armed forces as he would have made if he had been in the active service of the City. The contributions must be made in equal monthly instalments within a period of time equal to the time served in the armed forces. The foregoing section is derived from a general act of local application. Sec. 11.1.41 amends specifically the pension acts. It also covers credit for military service when the employee, prior to such service, was an employee of the City. The employee's contributions must not be in ar- rearage for more than 90 days and the employee fur- ther has the privilege of paying all of the back payments when or before he returns to his employ- ment with the City. This section extends the coverage of allowance of prior credit for military service to specifically cover the Korean conflict and is an amendment to Sec. 11.1.40. The employee must have been em- ployed by the City prior to his military service. However, this section relieves him from making any contributions to the pension fund for the period of time during which he was in the military service.  Sec. 11.1.43 Sec. 11.1.45 Sec. 11.1.46 Sec. 11.1.46.1 Sec. 11.1.48 - the United States Government to perform duties Credit is allowed to a person who was previously employed by the State of Georgia or a political subdivision thereof within Fulton or DeKalb Counties. The person must have at least 5 years continuous service with the City before becoming eligible for the credit. The person must pay into the pension fund an amount equal to that which he would have paid into the fund had he been an employee of the City during such time and the payments must be made over 36 months. The amount of credit for prior service is lim- ited to 10 years. This section grants credit to a person who, prior to his employment with the City, was employed by within Fulton or DeKalb Counties. He is entitled to credit under the conditions of Sec. 11.1.43. Additionally, this section also allows credit for service to persons who were given a special mili- tary leave to do wartime duty in the American Red Cross. This section deals with credit for prior service for teachers in a public school system or in a public or private college or university by which they were employed prior to employment with the City. The maximum credit allowed is 10 years. The employee must have been employed by the City for a period of 5 years before being eligible for eredit. The teacher must pay into the pension fund an amount equal to that which the teacher would have been required to pay had the teacher been an employee of the City. the back payments bear interest at 6% per annum. In addition, the teacher must pay a sum equalithe amount of match- ing funds which the City would have paid into the fund had the teacher been employed by the City during the time for which prior credit is sought. This section extends credit for prior teaching, granted to teachers in the section above, to all officers and employees employed by the City, who may have been teachers in the past. This section allows credit to employees who, prior to their employment with the City, were members of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia. Credit is allowed for a full year for each year's membership in the General Assembly.  Sec. 11.1.49 Sec. 11.2.19 See. 11.2,22 Sec. 11.2.23 Sec. 11.2.24 Sec. 11.2.25 Sec. 11.2.26 Sec. 11.2.27 Employees of the Board of Education connected with the operation of its cafeteria, who were previously employed in the private operation of such cafeteria are allowed credit for the prior service with the private operation of the cafe- teria upon paying into the pension fund the amount such employee would have paid during the time of his employment with the private opera- tion of the cafeteria. This payment must be © made over 36 months. FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND These provisions are substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.43 of the’ General Employees Pension Fund, This section is substantially the same as that of 11.1.30 of the General Employees Pension Fund. This section deals with the transfer of any mem- ber of a fire department from Fulton or DeKalb County to the City of Atlanta. The transferred employee is entitled to full credit for the years of service while in the fire department of the county. It is required that there be paid into the pension fund of the City an amount equal to that amount paid into the county pen- sion fund by the county employee and an equal amount to represent the fund required to be paid into the county pension fund by the particular county. This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.2.25, set forth below. This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.40 of the General Employees Pension Fund with respect to credit for time in military ser- vice. This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.42 of the General Employees Pension Fund which extends credit for military service to include the Korean conflict and subsequent thereto. This section provides that members of the fire- department who are on approved military leave  » 41.35.17 - 11.3.23 11.3.24 11,325 1143426 11.3.27 from active service and employment, may receive credit toward retirement by making the same contributions to the pension fund that they would have made had they been in active employ- ment service. The contribution is to be paid within 36 months after reassignment to active duty with the City. This section provides that no credit will be allowed to any member who voluntarily re-enlists in the military service after the end of his first leave for military service unless such person is granted an addi- tional military leave. POLICEMEN'S PENSION FUND This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.43 of the General Employees Pension Fund. This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.30 of the General Employees Pension Fund. This section deals with the transfer of a mem- ber of the police department of Fulton or DeKalb Counties to the City of Atlanta, and is substan- tially the same as Sec. 11.2.23 of the Firemen's ‘Pension Fund. This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.40 of the General Employees Pension Fund, This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.1.42 of the General Employees Pension Fund. This section is substantially the same as Sec. 11.2.27 of the Firemen's Pension Fund.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 52 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/f9d8b12a73233e6d946bf0ad259d39af.pdf f19dc61b9c46ee618f8c7187d064fea2 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ------------------=='CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF L A W 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 Septemb r 18, 1969 R. afford Building Official Offic of Ins ctor of Building ~ 800 City H 11 Atlanta; Georgi 30303 Mr • • D r Bill : ilitary a rvic •• ting th t I pr r for ctual pl o nt by t n ion er dit . On Augu t 27, you a bri £ r City, th t 1 ncloa thr rd fr our• ry truly, F rrin Y. nc1 . • Cl yor r. th w A ai t nt City Atrn,l'"ftoy /ljl , Jr . ta kis the � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document CITY OF ATLANTA DEPARTMENT OF LAW 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 September 18, 1969 Mr. W. R. Wofford Building Official Office of Inspector of Buildings Le 800 City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Bill: Re: On August 27, 1969, ye you a brief resume of City, that is allowed ’ requesting that I prepare for ce, othqr than actual employment by the \ be coungs i for pension credits. TiC Enclosed her » you wil i a summary I have prepared from the three pensi s relating to the City of Atlanta. Yours very truly, Ferrin Y¥. Mathews FYM/1)1 Assistant City Attorney Enel. ee: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. ec: Mr. George Coteakis  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 51 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/2e69cbe8e43cb21d16c92f089aed0f99.pdf 9cdd423b68dbec12c3537e5b6a80fc49 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. NALL, MILLER, CADENHEAD & DENNIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAMUEL A. MILLER A. P AU L CADENHEAD DOUGLAS ' D ENNIS JAMES W . DO RSEY EDWARDS. WH IT E DON A LD M. FAIN THEODORE G. FR ANKE L MIC HAEL D . ALEMBIK ROBERT E . CORRY . JR. GERALD A. FRIEDLANDER DENNIS J . WEBB THOMAS S. C AR L OCK BAXTER L . DAVIS PRICES. WILLIAMS. JR. JON 0. FULLERTON LOWELL S. FINE RONNIE L . QUIGLEY 2400 NAT I ONAL BANK OF GEORGIA BU IL D I NG ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 September 11, 1969 COUNS E L A . WA LTON MORTYN NALL K. ZIETZ HAMILTON DOUGLAS (404) 522 - 2200 Mr . Dan E. Swea t , Jr. Chief Administra tive Officer Cit y of At l a nta City Ha ll Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dea r Mr . Sweat: Th ank you very mu ch f or y our letter of Septemb er 9 and the enclosed c orrespondenc e between y ou and HUD regarding Section 114 of the City of Atlanta Plumbing Code . I n ote that on Page Two of HUD' s r ep l y to you r l etter the fol lowing appears : "Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta. Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constru cted to Building Code specifications . Such interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability." In view of its very clear expression on this matter, it does not seem unreasonable to hope that HUD's interpretation will in the future be followed in the enforcement of Section 114 by the Atlanta Building Department. ESW/lw � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document NALL, MILLER, CADENHEAD & DENNIS SAMUEL A. MILLER A. PAUL CADENHEAD DOUGLAS DENNIS JAMES W, DORSEY EDWARD S. WHITE DONALD M, FAIN THEODORE G. FRANKEL MICHAEL D, ALEMBIK ROBERT E. CORRY. JR. GERALD A, FRIEDLANDER DENNIS J. WEBB THOMAS S, CARLOCK BAXTER L. DAVIS PRICE S. WILLIAMS. JR. JON O. FULLERTON LOWELL S. FINE RONNIE L. QUIGLEY Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2400 NATIONAL BANK OF GEORGIA BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 September 11, 1969 Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia Dear Mr. Sweat: 30303 Thank you very much for your letter of the enclosed correspondence between you and HUD regarding Section 114 of the City of Atlanta Plumbing Code. COUNSEL A. WALTON NALL MORTYN K. ZIETZ HAMILTON DOUGLAS (404) S22-2200 September 9 and I note that on Page Two of HUD's reply to your letter the following appears: "Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to Building Code specifications. Such interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability." In view of its very clear expression on this matter, it does not seem unreasonable to hope that HUD's interpretation will in the future be followed in the enforcement of Section 114 by the Atlanta Building Department. ESW/1w Sincerely yours, Fduurerd 2D, (ihe Edward S. White  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 50 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/c600dddc0116d4c17502c5d15dc28421.pdf 7ae0b450b3df0e37316be12383932493 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 .' Dear Mr. Sweat: .. . _.,,. ··- ·"'; Th:i.s will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mro Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Seco 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and . earthenware tra~ standards shall be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited. • -.>~/.• ' ~ j 'I Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a · slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approv ed firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choic e of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. ~- ~-·. �~-'· I ,r· ,.,. I '-' . !\ .r -2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." __ ) ..,, .·-; . The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P~503o0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exceptiono The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base." The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard cod·e s such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications • Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the _construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, {{u/ 1c{ . ~Jk____ L£V""A. Frederick Smith Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office tJ · Assistant .. cc: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr • -} ... . :.: ... .-. ~ 0 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ‘di On, $ % “I in “s DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 4, ll? é PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 4% “Oraa3q wi® REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec, 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard- lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the ; connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited. Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. -2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications," The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base.'' The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications, Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, Mal Ue. Fog fr: Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office ec: Mayor Ivan Allen, Ir. aes  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 49 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/cc7091bf8f3b75ba2c1a0b56c1869ab5.pdf 70ee612073d9b168f4770bae1c4fec2d Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. I- DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat : ' ~- ..... .l • 1 • I This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approv~d firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited • I I •I Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first int~rpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a · slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above g-rade. -1 · l As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable mater ials should appl y to any f l oor so constructed. .... :_:.. ... - . --~ -.-: �r ,·. , ., -2 In our judgment, tne intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plwnbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base. 11 The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental st andards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability . ·, We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an inter pre tation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, (/,u/$. 143.215.248.55 ~ A . Frederick Smith /) Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office -·11I • Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. cc: .. / , ..,· .. --;_:.· . � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document a On a * | oe Ss : %, (iy: 3459 “ + 3 Wo. ows™ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 le REGION III September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr, Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard- lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited. Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base.'' The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards, They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. “2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications," The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-~503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception, The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base.'' The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes, Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, A. Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office ec: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 48 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/0c54bcc0f4821bab57553a711488a273.pdf d528068526bcce91e6456071814de25a Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. l . l DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING A N D URBAN D .E VELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA , GEORG IA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY R E FER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 •, : Dear Mr. Sweat: .l ..... This will acknowledge ' your letter da t ed August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections be t ween drainage pipes and water clos ets, Floor- outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards sha ll be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the conne ction. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm ba s e . The use of comme rcia l putty or plaster is prohibited. ' ·1 I . I •. ...,. •..j .l lI Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are cente r ed around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an a pproved firm base." The first interpretat i on is that the choice of materials is restricted to a · slab on gr ade, which, according to t his interpretation, is the only slab that const itutes " an a pproved firm base" insofar as the us e of brass o r iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that t he intent of the Section is to permit the . choice of materials ("bras s, hard- l ead or iron flanges, c a l ked, soldered, or screwed to the d rainage pipe") on slab fl oors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable mat erials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards s hould constitute "an approved £inn bas e" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. - ....__,....... --- ·.,~ 0 • ,· �.' .-..:;,• -2 In our judgment, tne intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta 1 s Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term 11 an approved firm base. 11 A suggested de finition is 11 any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." ..-,·. ,, The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structura lly firm base 11 instead of 11 an approved firm base. 11 The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain s tandards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model st andard codes such as the Southern St andard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code me e ts pres ent Depart me ntal st anda rds as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors construct ed to building code specifications. Such an int e rpretation would also make this Section consist ent with a policy of pe rmitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonabl e standards of safety and durability • 0 . ~ .· . We trust tha t our comments on this matt e r will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, . ;rW ~ -~~{Z,__ ~ A . Frederick Smith Assist ant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office tJ ·,1 -·. ,4j cc: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr • .·.., -I· ..: .. .. •' . .,. . ,· ··-~:1· � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document sins WENT 9, “ie oot o . th % DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT % tai & PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 co 7" : Oran 3g od REGION. {I September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E, Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr, Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec, 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard- lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the ' connection, The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited. Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe'') on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. “2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception, The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base."" The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications, Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, qT, ? fh, ez Wel he. Foe A. Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office ec: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 47 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/467854324e25031e6366a3b37cfeb8ef.pdf e024b353a870f04ce0467292c38bc33f Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. I • DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code , which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks , pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hardlead _or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or s etting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or pl as ter is prohibited. -l Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered -around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, wh ich, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flang es is concerned . The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, c alked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. --, - . �.·• ,,. J -2 In our judgment, tne intent, purpose, and correct interpreta tion of this Section of Atlanta 1 s Plumbing Code can be clarifie d by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved fi r m bas e . 11 A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." ..--;:- .. ,_.-: -"' 4 The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception . The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "struct ura lly firm base" instead of "an approved firm base. 11 The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standa rd and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code mee ts present Depa rtmenta l st andards a s to content and intent if the section is interpret ed to pe rmit the cho ice of allowable materials on all flo ors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowe ring reasonable standards of safety and durability • . .. •·.. We trust tha t our comments on thi s ma t t er will be of s ome benefit in arriving a t an inte r pr e tation that will be s a tisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincere l y yours, . . ;{~ft,_~ ~ ~ ~ tJ ·1 cc: -i Mayor Iva n All en, Jr. ·1 0 . Frede rick Smith Assistant Regional Administra tor Program Coordination & Services Office � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document WENT o, ¢ 4% < . 0 * 5 DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT % wai é PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 pe “Ors450 . REGION September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114, Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard- lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited. Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base."' The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards, They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute “an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. -2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base.'' The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, Ml We. Tirefelerioa A. Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office cc: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 46 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/b376d18206f807789369fd10fe0cff75.pdf 9d5a0ebf24d06342427d427fb3efb2f6 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING , ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 REGION Ill September 5, 1969 IN REPL Y REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerntng the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec . 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets , Floor- outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass , hardlead . or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe . The connection shall be bolted , with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The floor flange shall be set on approv~d firm base . The us e of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited . Your let t er out lines two opposing interpr e t ations of this Section, both of which a r e cent e r ed around the pr ovision t hat "the floor flange shall be set on an appr oved fi rm base . " The first int~rpr etat;:. ion is that the choice of materia l s i s r es tric t ed to a slab on gr ade , which , acco r ding t o t hi s interpr e t at ion , i s the on ly slab t hat cons t i tut es "an appr oved f i rm base" i ns ofar as t he us e of br ass or iron flanges is concerned . The second interpretation i s th~t t he intent of t he Sectio~ i s t o permi t the choice of ma teria l s (" br ass , har d- l ead or iron f langes , c a l ked , solder ed , or s crewed to the dr a inage pi pe" ) on slab floo r s above grade . As interpret ed by Reg ional Office codes specia lis t s , the purpos e of the Section i s to permit t he choice of a ll a llowab le mat eria l s on a ll floors constructed in accordance with buil d ing c ode s t andards. They point out that any floor of a building cons tructed in accordance with building code standards should cons titute "an approved firm bas e" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. �-2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base." The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest posstble cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in ·arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, ~ A . Frederick Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office tJ cc : Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document o = % PEACHTREE SEVENTH BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30323 Fy, ‘0: MENT o, “tn te Wil“: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (WIM # o 73430 wt REGION III September 5, 1969 IN REPLY REFER TO: 3CW Mr. Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer City of Atlanta City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Mr. Sweat: This will acknowledge your letter dated August 22, 1969, addressed to Mr, Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator, concerning the interpretation of Section 114 of the City of Atlanta's Plumbing Code, which reads as follows: Sec. 114. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard- lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection, The floor flange shall be set on approved firm base. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohibited. Your letter outlines two opposing interpretations of this Section, both of which are centered around the provision that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base." The first interpretation is that the choice of materials is restricted to a slab on grade, which, according to this interpretation, is the only slab that constitutes "an approved firm base" insofar as the use of brass or iron flanges is concerned. The second interpretation is that the intent of the Section is to permit the choice of materials ("brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe") on slab floors above grade. As interpreted by Regional Office codes specialists, the purpose of the Section is to permit the choice of all allowable materials on all floors constructed in accordance with building code standards. They point out that any floor of a building constructed in accordance with building code standards should constitute "an approved firm base" and thus, according to the Section as now written, the choice of all allowable materials should apply to any floor so constructed. -2 In our judgment, the intent, purpose, and correct interpretation of this Section of Atlanta's Plumbing Code can be clarified by amending the code to contain a definition of the term "an approved firm base." A suggested definition is "any base constructed in accordance with building code specifications." The Section is identical to Section 606.1 of the 1967 Edition of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. It is also identical with Section P-503.0 of the 1968 Edition of the BOCA Basic Plumbing Code with one exception. The BOCA Plumbing Code specified a "structurally firm base" instead of "an approved firm base."' The Department encourages the adoption of codes which contain standards comparable to those contained in nationally recognized model standard codes such as the Southern Standard and the BOCA codes. Thus Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code meets present Departmental standards as to content and intent if the section is interpreted to permit the choice of allowable materials on all floors constructed to building code specifications. Such an interpretation would also make this Section consistent with a policy of permitting the construction of housing at the lowest possible cost without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. We trust that our comments on this matter will be of some benefit in arriving at an interpretation that will be satisfactory to all parties concerned. Sincerely yours, Tol le Tre filo Sa As ae Smith Assistant Regional Administrator Program Coordination & Services Office ec: Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 45 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/8967dc46d4692fefb033da18690586de.pdf dfb4eae12241f7b94d0e6b95f75ff8b5 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. • .' NALL, MILLER. CADENHEAD & DENNIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW SAMUEL A . MILLER A . PAUL CADENHEAD DOUGLAS DENNIS J ·AMES W . DORSEY EDWARD $. WHITE HAMILTON DOUGLAS DONALD M . FAIN 2400 NATIONAL BANK OF GEORGIA BUILDING ATLANTA . GEORGIA A . WALTON NALL THEODORE G. FRANKEL M ORTYN K. ZIETZ MICHAEL D . ALEM!IJK September 4, 1969 R08ERT E. CORRY, JR . GERALD A , FRIEDLANDER DENNIS J . WEBB THOMAS S. CARLOCK BAXTER L , DAVIS COUNSEL 30303 (404) 522-2200 · PRICE S . WILLIAMS, JR. JON 0 . FULLERTON LOWELL S. FINE RONNIE L. QUIGLEY Mr. George Cotsakis 150 Ottley Drive, • E. Atlanta, Georgi 30324 Interpr t t1on ot Section 114 ot At1anta Plumbing Cod Re: Der Mr. Cots k1: On April 16 1 1969 I rote to you about a probl m involving Section 114 of the Atlan.t a Plumbing Code 1n hi:h s ver 1 client ot our are inter t d. The purpose of that 1 tter wa tor quest an opportunity to be he rd on th merit ot ny chang or revision of the exi ting ordin nc • You r pl1 d very pro ptly to my 1 tt r d er kind enough to ay th t I would be notified ot ny ting h ld by the Building Co · itt e to con id r any proposed ch ng sin th t ection of th Cod • Ast r as I know, ther has be n no ettort to chang existing ordinance, but th probl regarding it correct int rpr t t1on and enforc ent h not b olv d. B c ntly, I di cussed the tter 1th Mr. D n Sw t, Chi r A 1n1atr tive Ottic rot th City, in th hop th t this probl talle within hi jurisdiction and that he 1 in po 1t1on to s .1 t 1n re chin olution. I look torward to h r1n tr h in th n t twdy. th Thi 1• to repeat the r qu t tout in letter pril 16th r ardin notic and an opportunity to · e b r 1n th v nt ot a propo .1 to odity Sect i on 114. If it urn out that tbi probl cannot b olv 4 a n a 1n11tr tiv level, I will be r tetul tor an opportunity to diecusa the tter with you and obt 1n your guid nc · nd dvic • ot c: .• Mr. D • t � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Set ee a — — Cae Se ae NALL, MILLER, CADENHEAD & DENNIS SAMUEL A. MILLER ATTORNEYS AT LAW A. PAUL CADENHEAD 6s TAL CACENHE 2400 NATIONAL BANK OF GEORGIA BUILDING me JAMES W. DORSEY EDWARD: s; WHite ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 HAMILTON DOUGLAS DONALD M. FAIN A. WALTON NALL THEODORE G. FRANKEL MICHAEL D. ALEMBIK MORTYN K. ZIETZ ROBERT E. CORRY, JR. GERALD A, FRIEDLANDER September 4 > 1969 = DENNIS J. WEBB (404) 522-2200 THOMAS S. CARLOCK BAXTER L. DAVIS - PRICE S. WILLIAMS, JR. JON 0, FULLERTON LOWELL 5S. FINE RONNIE L. QUIGLEY Mr. George Cotsakis 150 Ottley Drive, N. E. Atlanta, Georgia 30324 Re: Interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta Plumbing Code Dear Mr. Cotsakis: On April 16, 1969 I wrote to you about a problem involving Section 114 of the Atlanta Plumbing Code in which several clients of ours are interested. The purpose of that letter was to request an opportunity to be heard on the merits of any change or revision of the existing ordinance. You replied very promptly to my letter and were kind enough to say that I would be notified of any meeting held by the Building Committee to consider any proposed changes in that section of the Code. As far as I know, there has been no effort to change the existing ordinance, but the problem regarding its correct interpretation and enforcement has not been solved. Recently, I discussed the matter with Mr. Dan Sweat, Chief Administrative Officer of the City, in the hope that this problem falls within his jurisdiction and that he is in position to assist in reach- ing eee I look forward to hearing from him in the next ew ye. ’ This is to repeat the request set out in my letter of April 16th regarding notice and an opportunity to be heard in the event of a postest to modify Section 114. If it turns out that this problem cannot be solved on an administrative level, I will be grateful for an opportunity to discuss the matter with you and obtain your guidance and advice. Sincerely yours, S. White ESW: erm ec: Mr. Dan E. Sweat  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 44 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/22ce8ae1467675cd5f7f3539e843b7cb.pdf b082c58d08eba4e4975295bc5ddf2265 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. .August 22, 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional .Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30 323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen :reg arding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 11 4 required the e xclu s ive use of wiped lead s tubs for floor o u tlet water clo se t s and urinals. At about that time HUD m ade a s tudy of the P l umbing Code a nd in the inte r es t of moderni z ation recornmenci e d tha t t he C ity arne nd n umer ous p r uvi ~i on:.1, incluJlng S e ction 114 . 1 ha v e been inform.ed that the revision of Section 114 recommended by HUD follo we d verba t im the co rres ponding provi s ion of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As Mn.end e d , S e ction 114 1·eads a s follows: Sec . 114 . Fixtu r e conne ction s between dr a inag e pipes a nd wa te r clo sets , F l oor• outlet service sink s , pedesta l ur i nal s , a nd ea rthenwa r e t rap standa rds s hall b e m a de by m e ans of brass , hard-lea d o r i r on fla n ges , call<:. ed ,- solde r ed or s c rewe d t o the drainage pip e . The c onne c tion shall b e b ol ted , with an approved ga s ke t or wa s he r o r se t ting compou nd between the e a r the n war e and t he conne ction. The use of commercial putty o r p l a s ter is prohibited . Since Section 114 provides that "the fl o or flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered 0 or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base" . Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on floors above a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base 11 • Under that view of Section 114 it would b'e permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. �I Mr. Edwa1·d H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interpretation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in Decein'lber, 1966, was t o permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the draiuage pipe" and that the express language of the Section is s uch as to permit such choice. Under that construction the phrase "an approved firm base" applies equally to all of the materials and not just to those other than lead. The question bas, thel'e!ore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above s lab on grade to wi ped l ead stubs 01· has a choice on such floor s of u s ing "brass , hard-lea d or iron flanges , calked, soldered or scr e wed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring about the enactment of Section 114 in its present form. the City would like to know what HUD regards as the correct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Section 114, it will be helpful if HUD will expeess its judment as to what the c ode ought to provide on th.is point, entirely apart from the present l anguage of Section 114 , in o rder to enc or.rage the construction of low-:1.·ent, low-cost housing without lowedng reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will b e very much appreciated. Sincere ly, Dan E . Sweat, Jr. Chief .Administrative Officer DESJr:Je � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document August 22, 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen regarding the correct interpretation of Section il4 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water closets and urinals. At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City amend numerous provisions, including Section 114. I have been informed that the revision of Section N4 recommended by HUD followed verbatim the corresponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As ®mended, Section 114 reads as follows: Sec. ll4. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohbbited. Since Section 114 provides that the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe'' applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes ''an approved firm base", Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors above a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base", Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs, Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interprefation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language of the Section is such as to permit such choice. Under that construc- tion the phrase "an approved firm base'' applies equally to all of the materials and not just to those other than lead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section li4, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stube or has a choice on such floors of using “brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring about the enactment of Section 114 in its present form, the City would like to know what HUD regards as the correct answer to that queation, In addition to the correct interpretation of Section 114, it will be helpful if HUD will expeess its judment as to what the code ought to provide on this point, entirely apart from the present language of Section ll4, in order to enconrage the construction of low-rent, low-cost housing without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESJr sje  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 43 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/8a7a384869be47e86fdb9d29763a4e66.pdf f0694afe1153a2f789aa975190bc737c Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. .August 22, 1969 M r. Edwar d H. Bax t er , Re g ional A dministra tor D epar tment of Hou s ing and Urban D e velopme nt R oom 64 5, P e achtre e - S eventh Building Atlanta , Georg ia 3032 3 Dea r M r. Baxter: A que s tion h a s aris e n r e ga rding th e correct inte rpretation of Section 114 of Atla nta ' a Officia l P l u m b ing Code. Prior to Dec e mber 20 , 19 66, Sectio n 114 requir e d the exclus ive u se of wi p ed l ead s tub s for fl o or o u tl e t wa t e r clo se t s and u r ina ls . A t ab out tha t time HUD mad e a study of the P l umb i n g C ode and i n t he int erest of m oderniz ation r e comme nde d th a t the City anu~nd n umer ous p r ovi tduu l:i , iuduJlng S ec tion. 114 . I ha ve b een informe d that th e revision of Section 114 r e comm e nde d by H UD f o ll ow ed v e rbatin 1 the correspond i ng provi s ion of the S outhe r n Sta ndard Plumbing C ode . As htne n ded , Se ction 114 1·ead s a s foll owa : Sec. 114 . Fixtur e conne cti on s between d ra i nage p ipe s and water closets , F loo r- o u tl et se rvice sinks , p e destal urina l s, and earthenware t rap standard s s h a ll be made by m ean s of brass , hard- l ead o r i ron flanges , c a l ked, s olde1· ed or screwed t o the dra i nage pipe . The c onnec t ion shall be bolted, w i th an appr o ved gaske t or washe r or set tin g compound between the e a rthenware a nd the conne ction. T he use of commercial putty or plaster is prohtbited. Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of " b1•ass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade , which constitutes "an appr o ved firm base". Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors abovEl a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base ". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. �i Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 .August 22, 1969 The opposing interpreQaa.tion is that the purpose o! the amendn1ent of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass , hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, s oldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language ot. the Section is such as to permit such choice. Under that construc-tion the phrase "an approved firm base applies equally to all of the materia ls and not just to those othe r than lead. The question bas, the1·efore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114 , the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above s lab on grade to wiped l ead stub2 or has a choice on such floo rs of using "brass, hard- l ead or iron flanges, c alked·, soldered o r ac1·ewed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was iustrwnontal in bring a bout the e n actment of Section 114 in its present form, the City w ould like to know what HUD regards as the cor rect answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Sec tion U4, it will be he lpful if HUD will expcees its judment as to what the code ought to provide on this point,· entirely apart from the present language of Section 114, in order to gnconrage the construction of low- 1·ent, low-cost housillg without lowering reasonable standards 0£ safety and dura bility. Your help on these matters \trill be very rnuch appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Of!icer DESJr:Je � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Hud August 22, 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen regarding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water closets and urinals. At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City amend numerous provisions, iucluding Section 114, I have been informed that the revision of Section ll4 recommended by HUD followed verbatim the corresponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As @inended, Section ll4 reads as follows: Sec. ll4. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohtkbited. Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base'', one contenticn is that the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base". Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors above a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute “an approved firm base". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissibie to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interpreéation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language of the Section is such as to permit such choice. Under that construc- tion the phrase "an approved firm base'! applies equally to all of the materials and not just to those other than lead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs or has a choice on such floors of using “brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring about the enactment of Section 114 in its present form, the City would like to know what HUD regards as the correct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Section 114, it will be helpful if HUD will expeess its judment as to what the code ought to provide on this point, entirely apart from the present language of Section li4, in order to encourage the construction of lowerent, low-cost housing without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESIr sje  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 42 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/9282e4bcf774aea3dd2ea84975dc9ac9.pdf 312ab6fc8ccb9ecda78a47d38762ac99 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. August 22. 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter. Regional .Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645. Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen re gar ding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Officia l Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20, 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water clos e ts and urinals. At about that time HUD m a de a study of t he Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City am end numerous p r o visions , including S e ctiur"i ll~. I ha ve been informed that the revision of Section 114 recommended by HUD follo wed verbatim th e corresponding provisi on of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As Mn.ended, Section 114 reads as follows: Sec. 114 . Fixture connections between drainage pipe s and water clo sets , F loor •- out l et service sinks, pedestal urinals, and ear taenware trap standards s h a ll be made by m eans of bras s, har d-lead or iron flanges , ca lked, soldered o r screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall be bolted, with a n approved gaske t o r washer or s etting compound between the earthenware and the conne ction. The use of comme1·cial putty or plaster i s prohibited. Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be se t on an approved firm base 11 , one contention is that the choice of "braes, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered. or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base" . Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors above a slab on grade because such othe1· floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base". Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. �Mr. Edward H. Baxter l?agc 2 Aug ust 2Z, 1969 The opposing interpretation ·1s that the purpose uf the amendment of Section 114 in Decen-iber, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges , c alked, solder ed, or screwed to the d rainage pipe" and that the expreGs l anguage o! the Se ction is such as to permit such choice. Under that construction the phrase "an approve d firm base" a pplies equally to a ll of the materials and not juat to tho se other th.an l ead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer o r plumbing contractor i3 restricted on floors above s lab on grade to wiped lead stubs or has a c h oice on such floors of u sing "bra ss, h a rd-lead or iron flan ges , c alked , soldere d or screwed to the drainag e pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring a bout the enactment of Section 114 in its present !orm, the City would like to know what H UD regards as the corre ct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretati on of Sec tion 114, it will be helpful if HUD will e xp ess its judment as to ;vhat the code ought to pr ovide on tnia pQ.int, entirely apart from the present language of Se ction 114, in order to enconra.ge the cons truction of low-i·ent, low-cost hou iug wi thout lowering reasonable standards 0£ safety and durability. Your help on th~se matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E . Sweat. Jre Chief Administr tive Officer DESJr :je � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document August 22, 1969 Mr. Edward H. Baxter, Regional Administrator Department of Housing and Urban Development Room 645, Peachtree-Seventh Building Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Dear Mr. Baxter: A question has arisen regarding the correct interpretation of Section 114 of Atlanta's Official Plumbing Code. Prior to December 20), 1966, Section 114 required the exclusive use of wiped lead stubs for floor outlet water closets and urinals, At about that time HUD made a study of the Plumbing Code and in the interest of modernization recommended that the City amend numerous provisions, including Section 114, Ihave been informed that the revision of Section 14 recommended by HUD followed verbatim the corresponding provision of the Southern Standard Plumbing Code. As ixtmended, Section 114 reads as follows: Sec. ll4. Fixture connections between drainage pipes and water closets, Floor-outlet service sinks, pedestal urinals, and earthenware trap standards shall be made by means of brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, goldered or screwed to the drainage pipe. The connection shall he bolted, with an approved gasket or washer or setting compound between the earthenware and the connection. The use of commercial putty or plaster is prohbbited, Since Section 114 provides that "the floor flange shall be set on an approved firm base", one contention is that the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" applies only to a slab on grade, which constitutes "an approved firm base", Under that theory Section 114 does not permit a choice of the three materials on iloors above a slab on grade because such other floors do not necessarily constitute "an approved firm base"'. Under that view of Section 114 it would be permissible to restrict such joints on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs. Mr. Edward H. Baxter Page 2 August 22, 1969 The opposing interprefation is that the purpose of the amendment of Section 114 in December, 1966, was to permit the choice of "brass, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered, or screwed to the drainage pipe" and that the express language of the Section is such as to permit such choice, Under that construc- tion the phrase "an approved firm base" applies equally to all of the materials and not just to those cther than lead. The question has, therefore, been raised as to whether, under Section 114, the engineer or plumbing contractor is restricted on floors above slab on grade to wiped lead stubs or has a choice on such floors of using "brags, hard-lead or iron flanges, calked, soldered or screwed to the drainage pipe". Since HUD was instrumental in bring about the enactment of Section 114 in its present form, the City would like to know what HUD regards as the correct answer to that question. In addition to the correct interpretation of Section 114, it will be helpful if HUD will expeess its judment as to what the code ought to provide on this point, entirely apart from the present language of Section 114, in order to encourege the construction of low-rent, low-cost housing without lowering reasonable standards of safety and durability. Your help on these matters will be very much appreciated. Sincerely, Dan E. Sweat, Jr. Chief Administrative Officer DESJr :je  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 1, Folder 4, Document 41 Box 1 Box 1 Folder 4 Folder topic: Building department | 1969