Connecticut Senate Bill SB00166

Connecticut 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/23/22
• Refer: 2/23/22
• Report Pass: 3/8/22
• Refer: 3/17/22
• Report Pass: 3/23/22
• Engrossed: 4/13/22
• Report Pass: 4/14/22

Caption

An Act Concerning The Period Of Service Of An Acting Building Official.

Impact

One notable impact of SB00166 is its amendment of existing statutes related to the administration of building codes. The specification for appointing acting officials ensures that there is minimal disruption in the enforcement of building codes during transitions in personnel. Municipalities will need to adapt to these changes in their governance frameworks, ensuring that their appointment processes align with the new state requirements, which could create a significant shift in how local governments operate regarding building official appointments.

Summary

SB00166 is an act concerning the period of service for an acting building official. The bill defines the appointment process for local building officials, which must be done by the chief executive officer of any municipality for a term of four years. It also introduces provisions allowing the appointment of an acting building official in case of death, disability, or dismissal of the sitting official, with a maximum term of 180 days, extendable for another 180 days if a permanent successor is not found. This adjustment aims to ensure that municipalities maintain continuous building regulation and oversight.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB00166 appears largely supportive within legislative discussions, as it is aimed at maintaining efficient governance in local building management. There is a recognition among lawmakers of the importance of having qualified personnel in these crucial roles. The lack of opposition during voting, as indicated by a unanimous approval (149 yeas to 0 nays), suggests a consensus about the necessity for clearer appointment procedures and the importance of continuous oversight in building regulations.

Contention

While the bill has been generally well-received, there may be underlying concerns regarding the power dynamics it introduces into municipal governance. Critics could argue that the potential for extended periods without a permanent building official might lead to delays in decision-making or accountability issues. Moreover, it is crucial that the process leading to the dismissal of a local building official remains transparent and fair, as it is designed to protect the rights of these officials while ensuring they adhere to their professional responsibilities.