Nearly two months after county commissioners said they were interested in a third-party review of the county’s building codes department, commissioners are set to find a consultant to conduct the review.

Commissioners in early July indicated they wanted an outside consultant to examine the building and codes division after a controversy emerged over whether a rural building project by Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach had been granted too many exemptions from the county’s building code.

At Wednesday’s Douglas County Commission meeting, commissioners will consider soliciting proposals from consultants interested in conducting the review. But it was unclear on Monday whether the proposed review will seek answers to many of the questions that surrounded the Kobach project.

County Commissioners Jim Flory and Nancy Thellman both declined to answer questions for this article, and attempts to reach Commissioner Mike Gaughan were unsuccessful.

The Kobach case — which involves a dispute over whether Kobach improperly converted an agricultural building into a residence without receiving the necessary county permits — has raised questions about whether the county’s building codes department has been allowed to use too much discretion in exempting projects from codes.

Commissioners on Monday would not comment on whether they intend for a third-party review to answer that question. Flory said he was reserving comment for Wednesday’s meeting. Thellman said she had not read the page and a half staff report on the issue, and was reserving comment until she had done so.

Commissioners on Wednesday will receive a report from Assistant County Administrator Sarah Plinsky. It details some issues a consultant could review, but it does not specifically mention the Kobach case.

Among the items the report says a consultant could review are:

• Responsiveness of the Douglas County zoning and codes department, including a review of how long it takes the department to process plans and how that time period compares with other governments in the region.

• Fairness and professionalism of the department, including a review of how the department can “integrate contractor and builder feedback to ensure that staff interactions are fair and professional.”

• A best practices review to examine how other governments handle issues related to how construction permits are valued, what policies and procedures are used for waiving building permit fees, and how communities deal with issues related to construction that occurred without a permit.

The Kobach case has created numerous questions surrounding the county’s zoning and codes department.

In 2013, Kobach swore in an affidavit that a 2,250 square-foot metal barn he planned to build in northern Douglas County would be used only for agricultural purposes and would not be “a place for human habitation,” “a place of employment” or “a place used by the public.”

But in spring 2014, Douglas County inspector Pat Wempe found Kobach had the framework inside the barn for a 1,250-square-foot, two-bedroom home with electrical hookups and plumbing for a kitchen, laundry room and bathroom.

County Administrator Craig Weinaug ordered codes director Jim Sherman — who has since resigned to become the codes director in another community — to take over the inspection.

Sherman issued Kobach an occupancy permit in September 2014 even though Kobach did not have an approved water source and the plumbing beneath the concrete foundation had not been inspected, the Journal-World learned. Sherman later said Kobach had plans to install a water line someday.

Weinaug waived a code that required Kobach to pay a penalty for not having a building permit.

On Monday, Karrey Britt, a spokeswoman for the Lawrence-Douglas County Health Department, told the Journal-World that Kobach was moving away from installing a water line to digging a well. He is scheduling an on-site consultation with the department, she said.

The Kobach case also has been controversial because Weinaug’s and Flory’s public responses about the case conflict.

Weinaug has said in a taped interview that Kobach did not receive special treatment but that Weinaug had ordered a change in policy when he hired Sherman just a couple of months before the Kobach case surfaced.

Weinaug said the codes department needed to be an agency that helped builders get into compliance and not be an agency that just fines and punishes violators. He believed that county codes gave Sherman broad discretion to implement a friendlier policy, and ordered Sherman to begin implementing the new policy.

During a commission hearing and in a published opinion piece in the Journal-World, however, Flory said there was no new policy but agreed that Kobach did not receive special treatment. Instead he said during the commission hearing that the county only had flimsy evidence that Kobach intended to build a house inside the barn, so Sherman couldn’t pursue harsher punishment.

But Kay Pettit, another county inspector, insisted at the hearing that there had been favorable treatment and that she had tried to tell Sherman there were problems with Kobach’s case.

“I hope you will finally hear my voice when I say that there are nearly 30 violations of the administrative (code) in the Kobach case,” she said. “There are also several life safety code violations in the house, and there are seven questionable zoning items on the Kobach project.”

Weinaug on Monday said he has asked Plinsky, his assistant, to lead the issue on how a third-party review should be conducted.

“Given the context of the situation as to why we are doing it in the first place, I thought it was appropriate that it be somebody other than me that made the recommendations to figure out what we did wrong and make sure we did it better in the future,” Weinaug said.

The County Commission meets at 4 p.m. Wednesday at the County Courthouse, 1100 Massachusetts St.