Laserfiche WebLink
for cities under 2,500 population in a non - <br />metropolitan county where voters have <br />approved an exemption from the state <br />building code and that did not adopt the <br />code before Jan. 1, 2008. <br />The Department of Labor and Industry <br />(DLI) has authority over state -licensed <br />facilities and public buildings. Pursuant to <br />Minn. Stat. § 326B.106, subd. 2, it must <br />delegate authority to inspect projects on <br />these buildings to a municipality if DLI <br />determines that the municipality has <br />adequate qualified local building officials to <br />perform plan review or inspection of the <br />projects. Over time, the delegation process <br />became unclear and arbitrary, and in 2014, <br />the Legislature passed legislation requested <br />by the League of Minnesota Cities and <br />agreed upon by DLI to provide more <br />transparency and clarity to the delegation <br />process. DLI, after consulting local <br />governments and the League, implemented a <br />new delegation procedure as required by <br />statute. <br />Disputes concerning code development have <br />led to efforts to either repeal the <br />International Mechanical Code or create a <br />new board with the authority to adopt, <br />administer, interpret, and enforce <br />mechanical codes in Minnesota. Such <br />proposals undercut efforts to adopt a single <br />set of compatible codes, which help provide <br />for more efficient compliance, <br />administration, and enforcement of <br />construction regulations. <br />While a single set of coordinated codes <br />helps provide consistency in code <br />administration and enforcement, <br />implementation of sustainable building <br />design, construction, and operation does not <br />readily integrate with the existing state <br />building and energy code system. As a <br />result, many cities are interested in adopting <br />more aggressive local standards for <br />sustainable development and conservation. <br />Finally, the Legislature has directed the state <br />Construction Codes and Licensing Division <br />to develop competency criteria and <br />continuing education requirements for all <br />construction code inspectors. These <br />educational opportunities are particularly <br />important for small cities in Greater <br />Minnesota because DLI will not delegate <br />authority to local building officials unless <br />they meet certain experience and training <br />requirements. While the Legislature <br />supports greater training and education <br />requirements for local code officials, it has, <br />at the same time, redirected excess building <br />permit surcharge dollars into the general <br />fund to help balance the state's budget rather <br />than making these funds available for code - <br />related research and training <br />Response: A statewide -enforced building <br />code may have benefits, but requiring it <br />would result in an unfunded mandate. <br />The enforcement of a building code can <br />be cost prohibitive for many cities due to <br />the expenses and overhead related to <br />staffing versus the limited building <br />activity occurring in some communities. <br />The League supports the collaborative <br />efforts that lead to the 2014 changes to the <br />local delegation process, and DLI should <br />continue to consult with cities to ensure <br />that the process remains transparent and <br />fair. <br />Enforcing the State Building Code should <br />remain a local option for the <br />municipalities that have not already <br />adopted the Code, unless the state fully <br />funds the costs of enforcement and <br />inspection services necessary to enforce a <br />statewide building code. If the Legislature <br />requires all cities to enforce the State <br />Building Code, local governments must <br />have the option to hire or select a building <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2015 City Policies Page 18 <br />