At the June 3 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, there was an extensive discussion of the enforcement of building codes in Douglas County, and the commission received numerous comments relating specifically to the handling of the building permit issued to Kris Kobach. Since I believe the media coverage of that meeting (and the prior three feature articles discussing this topic) contained incomplete and, at times, totally inaccurate information, I feel the citizens of Douglas County deserve a more complete explanation.

In 2013, Mr. Kobach filed an affidavit with the Department of Zoning & Codes seeking an agriculture exemption for the structure he intended to erect on his rural property. While the functions of an ag-exempt structure are limited, there is no prohibition from having electricity, water, bathroom facilities and an office in an ag-exempt building. Additionally, anyone having an ag-exempt building has the right to seek conversion of the property to a more expanded use by seeking the necessary permits and being subject to mandatory inspections.

Preparatory work

When a county inspector went to the Kobach property in April 2014, at Mr. Kobach’s request, to perform the courtesy electrical inspection, he discovered that preparatory work had been done inside the structure (framing and some wiring) that indicated that Mr. Kobach apparently intended to also have a kitchen, laundry and bedrooms in the structure. The inspector properly informed Mr. Kobach that adding those features would render the structure habitable and that a building permit and mandatory inspections would be required.

It should be noted that the vast majority of the work that had actually been completed was permissible in an ag-exempt structure without a building permit, although inspection of the plumbing and electrical service would be required. The fact that the majority of the work completed at that point was permissible in an ag-exempt building without a building permit has never been explained in the media coverage of this issue.

Within a short period of time, Mr. Kobach informed the county that he did wish to proceed with the planned conversion of the ag-exempt building to a habitable use, and filed an application for a building permit to do so. On the permit application, the cost of the work and materials to complete the conversion was listed at $70,000. In every story by the Journal-World, it has been either stated or at least strongly inferred that the amount listed on the permit application was erroneous since the county appraisal for the property is $145,000. As was explained at the June 3 meeting, but not reported in the Journal-World, the proper amount to be listed on the building permit is the cost of the remodel/conversion, not the cost/value of the entire structure. As I explained at the meeting, if I were converting the garage of my home into an additional bedroom with a bath, my building permit fee would not be based on the appraised value of my entire home, but rather, would be based on the cost of the conversion.

Double fees

There is a provision in the county codes that provides for an additional fee equal to 100 percent of the regular permit fee (i.e. the fee is doubled) when a person, “commences any work before obtaining the necessary permits and paying the necessary permit fees.” Mr. Kobach was not required to pay the double fee (and it has not been imposed in several other cases in the past two years) because the county administrator and director of zoning and codes were under the impression that imposing the additional fee was discretionary. That was an apparent mistake by the county, not the applicant, and has been admitted.

At the June 3 meeting, I did not state that the double fee should not have been imposed, but rather, I indicated after learning more fully all of the facts relating to the case, that it was arguable the mandatory double fee should not apply since the vast majority of the work that had actually been done was permissible in an ag-exempt building without a building permit. There is no doubt that preparatory work had been accomplished, but my point was that the issue of imposing a double fee was not nearly as clear-cut as has been reported.

Prior to the issuance of the building permit, Mr. Kobach sought and obtained approval for a septic system from the county health department, and during the course of the construction all of the normal inspections were conducted, and a certificate of occupancy was issued in September 2014. While the adequacy of the water source (an internal cistern in the unimproved portion of the structure) has been questioned, it is the opinion of the director of zoning and codes that it is a sufficient temporary water source (hook up to the rural water system is anticipated in the future). Mr. Sherman has reported that Mr. Kobach complied with each and every request of the codes department and was totally cooperative throughout the process, but that fact has never been included in the “news” reports.

‘Unwritten policy’

An additional topic of discussion at the June 3 meeting was the concept of an “unwritten policy” with respect to building code enforcement. As I explained in some detail (but which was not reported in the coverage), there has never been an unwritten policy of leniency in enforcing the building codes. What we have said (as confirmed by my fellow commissioners) is that we want to assure that our approach to enforcing the codes is not overly heavy-handed and authoritarian. Wanting the department to emphasize courtesy, cooperation and a consumer-friendly attitude and approach is not something we would codify in the building code, but rather, is a concept we would ask the county administrator and director to implement internally.

In my opinion, the agenda of the four front page “news” stories has been to demonstrate favoritism being extended to Mr. Kobach, and further, to create the impression of impermissibly lenient code enforcement under Mr. Sherman. In pursuing that agenda and totally ignoring facts/opinions to the contrary, the picture that has been painted for the public is one-sided and in many instances inaccurate. The reading public and the officials whose reputations have been tarnished by this exercise in selective reporting deserve better and more objective journalism.

On a final and personal note, I feel it necessary to directly address the report in the June 4 Journal-World article that I, as the chairman of the board, threatened to remove one of the speakers due to the nature of his comments. That simply did not happen, and the reporter has since apologized for the error. That false assertion no doubt set a negative tone for anyone who was reading the article. Every speaker at that meeting, as is always the case in BOCC meetings, was treated with respect, and there were no restrictions whatsoever on the time they were allowed to speak or limiting the content of their comments. I welcome a review of the tape-recorded proceedings by anyone who has concerns or questions as to how that meeting was conducted or how this issue was handled.