Skip to content

Bills · 2009-2010 Regular Session

SB 55

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

the regulation, preservation, and restoration of historic buildings; the supplement to the federal historic rehabilitation tax credit and the state historic rehabilitation tax credit; requiring the certification of downtowns; promoting certain downtown areas in this state; highway projects involving business and downtown areas; granting rule-making authority; and making appropriations.

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Senate, not reached
  3. Passes Assembly, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill makes numerous changes with regard to historic buildings and

downtown development. Significant provisions include the following:

Historic buildings

State Historic Building Code

Current law authorizes the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to regulate

the preservation and restoration of qualified historic buildings. A qualified historic

building is a building that is listed on the national or state register of historic places,

or a certified local register of historic property, or that is located in a district that is

listed on the national or state register of historic places and is of historical

significance to the district. Current law permits Commerce, in consultation with the

Historic Building Code Council, to promulgate a historic building code that provides

specific standards for the preservation or restoration of qualified historic buildings,

while still providing for the health, safety, and welfare of occupants of and visitors

to historic buildings. In addition, to permit the preservation or restoration of

qualified historic buildings, Commerce may grant a variance from any rule

promulgated under the chapters of the statutes relating to the regulation of industry,

buildings, and safety or the regulation of plumbing, fire protection systems, and

swimming pools.

With certain exceptions, the owner of a qualified historic building may elect to

be subject to the State Historic Building Code. With limited exceptions, an owner

who makes this election is exempt from any provision of any other building code,

including a local building code, that concerns a matter that is dealt with in the State

Historic Building Code. Although current law does not contain an administrative

procedure designed specifically to determine whether an owner is entitled to this

exemption, current law does contain a procedure that an owner may follow to resolve

any conflicts between a local order and any order of Commerce that relates to the

safety of places of employment or certain buildings that are open to the public (public

buildings).

This bill specifies that the State Historic Building Code must be liberally

interpreted to facilitate the preservation and restoration of qualified historic

buildings. The bill also creates a specific administrative procedure for determining

the extent to which a provision in a local building code applies to a qualified historic

building. The bill permits the owner of a qualified historic building who has elected

to be governed by the State Historic Building Code to request that Commerce review

any decision of a local governmental unit that requires the owner to comply with a

provision in a local ordinance. Commerce must review the decision to determine

whether the provision in the ordinance concerns a matter dealt with in the State

Historic Building Code, in which case the owner would be exempt from the provision.

Commerce must consult with the State Historical Society (SHS) before making its

determination. The bill specifies that, in performing this review, Commerce must

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Darling (R) , Erpenbach (D) , Harsdorf (R) , Lassa (D) , Lehman (D) , Leibham (R) , Plale (D) , Risser (D) , Schultz (R) , Taylor (D) , Vinehout (D)

13 cosponsors

Ballweg (R) , Bernard Schaber (D) , Clark (D) , Davis (R) , Dexter (D) , Hintz (D) , Jorgensen (D) , Lothian (R) , Molepske Jr. (D) , Seidel (D) , Shilling , Spanbauer (R) , Strachota (R)

Votes

Senate: Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0 by committee on Economic Development

Passed 7–0 Oct 22, 2009 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Feb 12, 2009 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Lassa, Erpenbach, Risser, Taylor, Plale, Harsdorf, Vinehout, Lehman, Schultz, Darling and Leibham;Cosponsored by Representatives Shilling, Hintz, Molepske Jr., Lothian, Seidel, Dexter, Clark, Ballweg, Spanbauer, Jorgensen, Bernard Schaber, Strachota and Davis

  2. Feb 12, 2009 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development

  3. Mar 2, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Mar 3, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Mar 3, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Mar 6, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Mar 18, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Mar 19, 2009 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  9. Mar 31, 2009 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  10. Oct 22, 2009 · Senate

    Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0 by committee on Economic Development

  11. Oct 22, 2009 · Senate

    Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 2 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0 by committee on Economic Development

  12. Oct 22, 2009 · Senate

    Report passage recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  13. Oct 22, 2009 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  14. Oct 22, 2009 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  15. Jan 14, 2010 · Senate

    Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)

  16. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1