Law change ideas discussed at May 17th meeting

Post date: Jul 11, 2010 10:21:0 PM

Law Changes Needed to Improve

the

Safety and Buildings Division

By Regulatory Guidance and Design LLC

Public Involvement

• 1. Create an advisory council for the Wisconsin Building Safety Network, with existing laws of chapters 101, 145 and 560 as evidence of the need for coordination within such a network.

  2. Require the Division to consult with the WBSN Advisory Council on strategic planning, staff allocations, organizational structure and overall operations of the Division and the Division’s role within the WBSN.

  3. Require that the WBSN Advisory Council meet at least quarterly to review and react to the quarterly planning and progress reports issued by the Division.

  4. Require the Commerce Secretary to consult with the WBSN Advisory Council before appointing an S&B Division Administrator.

Transparency

• 1. Require that S&B issue, and post on the internet, a written quarterly planning and progress report, for each program area, within 60 days of the end of each quarter of the fiscal year.

  2. Require that such reports fully address proposed change initiatives, and actual experiences in revenues, expenditures, staffing levels, workload and work production in a specified standard format for all programs of the Division.

  3. Require public announcement of significant occurrences such as deaths or other failures of safety programs.

Accountability

• 1. Require that S&B maintain a five year strategic plan for the WBSN, so that the Division can be properly focused with the public aware of its direction.

  2. Require that the strategic plan be updated annually.

  3. Require each program of the Division to have an operational plan that is reviewed quarterly and updated as necessary.

  4. Require that all Division codes be updated on a three year, coordinated cycle.

Certainty

• 1. Stop S&B lapses to the general fund with a law and code change similar to the fire dues program.

  2. Create the S&B Division by statute, as is the case for the ERS Division.

  3. Define the Division’s role pertaining to commercial buildings to be the same as for one- and two-family dwellings; where municipal enforcement programs are in place S&B must stay out unless invited in, or unless an audit is underway.

  4. Require that a hearing be held, and that cause be identified before a municipal program can be taken over by S&B. (Similar to the laws and administrative rules for the POWTS program.)

  5. Require a statewide enforcement system for commercial buildings; the same as the UDC now.

  6. Specify that municipalities have the right to enforce state commercial building regulations and that they merely have to notify S&B of their situation and intentions; not ask for delegation.

  7. Delete the current law that requires cities of the second class to pay money to S&B for state oversight of their plan review operations, because that law places an undue burden on such cities.