[Title]

Committee: Commerce

First Analysis (5-10-05)

BRIEF SUMMARY: The bill would make it clear that two buildings can share an elevator provided other state elevator laws and rules are met.

FISCAL IMPACT: The bill would have no fiscal impact on state or local government.

THE APPARENT PROBLEM:

A package of bills has been introduced in the House and Senate under the title, "Creating Opportunities for Renewed Economies" or CORE. According to the developers of this package, the bills aim at providing additional tools and enhancing existing programs that encourage growth in the state's cities and villages. One component in the package is a bill that would allow and encourage multiple buildings to share elevators. Current law is said not to be clear on this subject. Sharing elevators can be a cost-effective way of accommodating additional residential and commercial space on the upper floors of adjoining buildings when those buildings, typically in downtowns, undergo renovation.

THE CONTENT OF THE BILL:

The bill would amend the Stille-DeRossett-Hale Single State Construction Code Act to specify that the act does not prohibit the sharing of an elevator between two buildings as long as the buildings are otherwise in compliance with the act and the state construction code, and are also in compliance with state acts or rules regulating elevators in buildings. Such acts include the Fire Prevention Code; Public Act 333 of 1976, which addresses the licensing of elevator journeymen; and Public Act 227 of 1967, which deals with the elevator safety board.

MCL 125.1513e

ARGUMENTS:

For:

As noted earlier, sharing elevators can be a cost-effective way of accommodating additional residential and commercial space on the upper floors of adjoining buildings when those buildings, which are typically located in downtowns, undergo renovation. Reportedly, the law is not clear on this currently. All other elevator laws and rules would have to be satisfied. This legislation could assist in the redevelopment of downtowns in cities and villages throughout the state.

POSITIONS:

Among those indicating support for the bill to the House Commerce Committee on 5-3-05 were: the Department of Labor and Economic Growth; the Department of History, Arts, and Libraries; the Michigan Association of Home Builders; the Michigan Environmental Council; and the Michigan Municipal League

Legislative Analyst: Chris Couch

Fiscal Analyst: Richard Child

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.