Senate Bill 55
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
Topics: Building, Building Commission, State, Commerce, Department of, Historical society, Housing, Income tax: Credit, Municipality: Planning, State office building, Tourism, Department of, Transportation, Department of: Roads
Stopped before the full Senate voted
The recommended passing it, but the full Senate never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.
-
Introduced, passed
Feb 12, 2009
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Senate vote, stopped here
Stopped here. The full Senate never voted on it.
-
Assembly vote, not reached
-
Governor, not reached
-
Law, not reached
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
What it would have done
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
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.
Read the full summary Show less
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 follow the existing procedure for resolving conflicts between local orders and orders of Commerce that relate to the safety of places of employment or public buildings.
In addition, the bill requires Commerce, in cooperation with the SHS, to develop an informational pamphlet to increase public awareness and use of the State Historic Building Code.
Historic buildings used as multifamily dwellings Current law requires Commerce to promulgate rules that provide uniform standards for the construction of multifamily dwellings and their components. With certain exceptions, a multifamily dwelling is an apartment building, row house, town house, condominium, or manufactured building that does not exceed 60 feet in height or six stories and that consists of three or more attached dwelling units. These rules currently apply to any building or portion of a building that is converted to a multifamily dwelling after April 1, 1995, unless the building is a qualified historic building and the owner elects to be subject to the State Historic Building Code. Rules promulgated by Commerce also permit a local governmental unit to exercise jurisdiction over the construction and inspection of multifamily dwellings by adopting ordinances that are consistent with Commerce's rules on multifamily dwellings. Currently, these rules contain specific requirements relating to the type, height, and design of handrails and guardrails that are required to be used in multifamily dwellings.
This bill permits a local governmental unit to adopt an ordinance that requires the local governmental unit to grant a variance from these handrail and guardrail requirements, as they apply to a qualified historic building that is converted from a single-family dwelling to a multifamily dwelling, if the owner of the qualified historic building shows that the type, height, and design of the handrail or guardrail proposed for installation is historically appropriate and if the handrail or guardrail is at least as protective of public safety as the rail that is otherwise required.
Historic rehabilitation tax credit Under current law, a person who is eligible to claim a federal income tax credit equal to either 10 percent of qualified expenses related to rehabilitating a qualified building in this state or 20 percent of qualified expenses related to rehabilitating historic property in this state may also claim a supplemental state income or franchise tax credit that is equal to 5 percent of such qualified expenses.
Under the bill, for taxable years beginning in 2010, a person who is eligible to claim the federal rehabilitation tax credit may claim the supplemental state rehabilitation credit in an amount equal to 20 percent of qualified expenses, if the rehabilitated property is located in this state and the SHS certifies the rehabilitation. In addition, under the bill, a person who is not eligible to claim the federal rehabilitation tax credit because the person's qualified expenses do not satisfy the adjusted-basis requirement under federal law may claim the supplemental state rehabilitation credit in an amount equal to 20 percent of qualified expenses, if the qualified expenses are at least $10,000, the rehabilitated property is located in this state and the SHS certifies the rehabilitation. The SHS may charge and collect a fee for the certifications described in this paragraph in an amount equal to 2 percent of the qualified expenses, but not less than $300 nor more than $20,000. Fifty percent of the amount of such fees collected by the SHS will be used to provide additional staffing for the administration of the State Main Street Program, which is a program that promotes revitalization efforts in certain business areas.
Under current law, a person may claim an income tax credit equal to 25 percent of the qualified expenses to preserve or rehabilitate historic property that is used as an owner-occupied personal residence. The SHS certifies those expenses.
Under this bill, for taxable years beginning in 2010, a person who is eligible to claim the state income tax credit for preserving or rehabilitating historic property may claim the state income tax credit in an amount equal to 30 percent of qualified expenses, if the preserved or rehabilitated property is located in this state and the SHS approves the preservation or rehabilitation. The SHS may charge and collect a fee of $150 for certifying such expenses.
Under current law, if a person who claims the income tax credit for qualified expenses to preserve or rehabilitate an owner-occupied personal residence sells the property within five years from the date on which the preservation or rehabilitation is completed, or if the SHS determines that the preservation or rehabilitation does not comply with the standards established by the SHS, the person who claimed the tax credit must pay to the state all, or a portion, of the amount of the credit that the person received, depending on the date on which the person sold the property or on the date on which the preservation or rehabilitation does not comply with SHS standards.
Under this bill, if a person who claims the supplemental state income or franchise tax credit for qualified expenses related to preserving or rehabilitating historic property in this state sells the property within five years from the date on which the preservation or rehabilitation is completed, or if the SHS determines that the preservation or rehabilitation does not comply with the standards established by the SHS, the person who claimed the tax credit must pay to the state all, or a portion, of the amount of the credit that the person received, depending on the date on which the person sold the property or the date on which the preservation or rehabilitation does not comply with SHS standards.
Downtown development Certification and promotion of downtowns This bill requires Commerce to develop and publish guidelines to aid communities in reconstructing central business districts that are destroyed or severely damaged in major disasters. The bill also requires Commerce to promulgate rules pursuant to which Commerce will certify downtowns. In addition, under the bill, the Department of Tourism must promote travel to these certified downtowns and to business areas that are or have been the subject of revitalization efforts under the State Main Street Program.
Currently, the Building Commission (commission) submits biennial recommendations to the legislature for revisions to the long-range state building program. No state agency or authority may engage any person to undertake construction of a building for the agency costing more than $100,000 without prior approval of the commission. In addition, the commission has authority to lease land and buildings to be used for state purposes unless that authority is granted by law to another state agency.
This bill provides that the commission shall not authorize construction of any state office building to be located outside of a downtown area certified by Commerce, as required under the bill, unless the cost of locating the building inside such a downtown area is more than 10 percent greater than the average cost of locating the building outside the downtown areas of the territory that is served by the functions to be performed in the building on the date of initial occupancy outside of such a downtown area, as determined by the Department of Administration (DOA). The bill also provides that the commission, in preparing its recommendations for the long-range state building program, shall not recommend construction of a state office building to be located outside of such a downtown area, unless the commission would be authorized to permit construction of that building in the recommended location. In addition, the bill prohibits the commission from approving the lease of any building for state office facilities to be located outside of such a downtown area unless the cost of locating the facilities inside such a downtown area is more than 10 percent greater than the average cost of locating the facilities outside the downtown areas of the territory that is served by the functions to be performed in the facilities on the date of initial occupancy under the lease outside of such a downtown area, as determined by DOA.
This bill imposes additional requirements relating to highway projects that are funded by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and that involve a highway in a business area included in the State Main Street Program or in a downtown certified by Commerce. First, DOT must consult, during preliminary stages of a proposed highway project, on issues concerning the proposed project and its effect on the business or certified downtown area with Commerce and, unless none exists, with a local board or downtown planning organization of that municipality. Second, DOT must, during the concept definition phase of the project, recognize the high visual and aesthetic significance of, and impact related to, these types of highway projects in evaluating the aesthetic and visual impact of the project.
Who's behind it
11 senators are its . 7 are Democrats and 4 are Republicans.
13 more lawmakers .
See all 24 names Hide the names
Authors (11)
- Alberta Darling · Republican, Senate
- Jon Erpenbach · Democrat, Senate
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
- Julie M. Lassa · Democrat, Senate
- John Lehman · Democrat, Senate
- Joe Leibham · Republican, Senate
- Jeffrey Plale · Democrat, Senate
- Fred A. Risser · Democrat, Senate
- Dale Schultz · Republican, Senate
- Lena Taylor · Democrat, Senate
- Kathleen Vinehout · Democrat, Senate
Signed on in support (13)
- Joan Ballweg · Republican, Senate
- Penny Bernard Schaber · Democrat, Assembly
- Fred Clark · Democrat, Assembly
- Brett Davis · Republican, Assembly
- Kristen Dexter · Democrat, Assembly
- Gordon Hintz · Democrat, Assembly
- Andy Jorgensen · Democrat, Assembly
- Thomas Lothian · Republican, Assembly
- Louis Molepske Jr. · Democrat, Assembly
- Donna Seidel · Democrat, Assembly
- Shilling
- Richard Spanbauer · Republican, Assembly
- Pat Strachota · Republican, Assembly
What it would cost
State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.
Versions and amendments
Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.
How lawmakers voted
There was one vote on this bill.
Senate Committee on Economic Development vote on an amendment
Passed, 7 to 0 · Oct 22, 2009
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report introduction and adoption of Senate Amendment 1 recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0 by committee on Economic Development”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 28, 2010
The session ended, and the bill died with it.
-
Jan 14, 2010
Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.
-
Oct 22, 2009
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.
-
Mar 31, 2009
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 19, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 18, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 6, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 3, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 2, 2009
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Feb 12, 2009
Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development.
-
Feb 12, 2009
Introduced in the Senate.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- 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
- Feb 12, 2009 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development
- Mar 2, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 3, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 3, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 6, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 18, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 19, 2009 · Senate
Fiscal estimate received
- Mar 31, 2009 · Senate
Public hearing held
- Oct 22, 2009 · Senate
Executive action taken
- 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
- 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
- Oct 22, 2009 · Senate
Report passage recommended by committee on Economic Development, Ayes 7, Noes 0
- Oct 22, 2009 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Jan 14, 2010 · Senate
Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)
- Apr 28, 2010 · Senate
Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
Terms on this page
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary
Author
A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.
Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary
From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source
Committee
A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.
Senate Joint Resolution 1
The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.
Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1
Legislative Reference Bureau
The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.
Official term: LRB analysis
Signed on in support
Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.
Official term: Cosponsor
Cost estimate
A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.
Official term: Fiscal estimate
Roll call
A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.
Official term: Roll call vote