Streamline or safety? Bills would waive some building reviews, but state inspectors warn of risks

Lawmakers before the holidays held a public hearing for three bills that would change how the state and local governments would review commercial building plans, including how soon plumbing construction can start.

The commercial review process has been a focus for streamlining by legislators after building professionals such as architects and engineers reported “delays and inconsistencies” with the current state level process, said state Sen. Duey Stroebel, who testified before a committee on Dec. 19.

The state senator argued one proposal would cut the review process for plumbing fixtures by several weeks compared to the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services‘ current online review process.

Here are the bills and what they would do.

• Senate Bill 186: The bill would add some flexibility for owners to schedule appointments with DSPS and would waive examinations for certain plumbing plans, according to the bill text
• Senate Bill 187: The bill would increase the review threshold for new construction from 50,000 cubic feet to 100,000 cubic feet. The text will also repeal a fee forwarding requirement and require DSPS to make a plan to encourage cities, towns and villages to start their own building examinations, according to the Legislative Reference Bureau
• Senate Bill 188: According to bill text, the measure would amend an existing statute and allow early construction starts before plans are approved, without removing liability from the plan designers

Lawmakers introduced a similar set of bills last year which would have exempted one-story buildings of 100,000-square-feet and facilities with up to 24 plumbing fixtures or fewer from state review. Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the measures for consumer protection and public safety.

State permit department warns of significant public health risks without building reviews

DSPS registered in opposition to all three bills. Mike Tierney, the department’s legislative liaison, said the root cause of plan delays under the old system stemmed from self-scheduling as proposed in SB 186.

“The most common legislative contacts related to plan review timelines at present occur when a building owner contacts a legislator because a submitter for their project claimed there was a plan review delay with the department,” Tierney wrote in a statement ahead of the hearing.

“In these cases, the facts regularly show the submitter failed to submit a plan for review or submitted a plan for review well after the date the owner anticipated. Occasionally, there are submitters who do not respond to an information request made by the reviewer. If you are a property owner undertaking a project, there is no uncertainty with plan review timelines – provided the people you hire do their jobs,” he added.

The department was turning around plan reviews in historically low times and continued the search for strategies to improve service, Tierney said. Exempting certain classes of buildings from inspection would create significant public health and safety risks, he added.

The next step for lawmakers is to gather support to get each bill through committee and survey the Senate Republican caucus before introducing them to the floor, said Mark Radcliffe, a legislative assistant at Stroebel’s office.

Real estate, contractor groups split on proposals

The Associated Builders and Contractors of Wisconsin, NAIOP Wisconsin and Wisconsin Builders Association were among groups who supported all three bills.

John Schulze, the legal director for ABC of Wisconsin, said in a statement the association “supports the changes because these are common sense reforms that will help get more buildings constructed faster without affecting safety.”

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Wisconsin, Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors Association of Milwaukee and Southeastern Wisconsin and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ Association of Milwaukee registered in opposition to SB 186.