TEMP. DOOR LOCKING DEVICES; SCHOOLS H.B. 4689 (S-1):
SUMMARY OF BILL
REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE
House Bill 4689 (Substitute S-1 as reported)
Sponsor: Representative Scott VanSingel
House Committee: Regulatory Reform
Ways and Means
Senate Committee: Regulatory Reform
CONTENT
The bill would amend Public Act 306 of 1937, which governs the construction, reconstruction, and remodeling of school buildings, to do the following:
-- Allow a temporary door locking device or system to be installed in a school building.
-- Prescribe requirements for the installation and use of a door locking device or system.
-- Require the school building's administrative authority to submit to the governmental agency that is responsible for administration and enforcement of the State Single Construction Code Act within a governmental subdivision drawings, diagrams, and installation instructions for plan review, obtain plan review approval, obtain a permit for installation, and notify the local fire department and the law enforcement agency that had jurisdiction over the building before the device's or system's installation.
-- Prescribe additional responsibilities for the school building's administrative authority as it related to the use of a temporary door locking device or system.
MCL 388.855a Legislative Analyst: Drew Krogulecki
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill would have no fiscal impact on school buildings, school districts, public school academies, and intermediate school districts; however, buildings that installed temporary door locking devices could incur additional costs to comply with the bill.
The bill would not have a significant fiscal impact on the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) or local units of government. Under the bill, the administrative authority of a school building would have to obtain an installation permit from the appropriate enforcing agency. The enforcing agency would be the Bureau of Construction Codes within LARA or a local government entity, depending on the jurisdiction in which the school was located. The cost of processing installation permits would be funded by permit fees and existing appropriations to the Bureau of Construction Codes. Local government entities likely would be able to absorb these costs.
Date Completed: 1-7-20 Fiscal Analyst: Elizabeth Raczkowski
Cory Savino
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.