An aerial view shows the construction site at New York Elementary School on Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2015.

The Douglas County inspector charged with overseeing a large portion of the Lawrence school district’s $92.5 million bond project to ensure the work was done according to buildings codes had no enforcement authority, the Journal-World has learned.

A contract between Douglas County and the Lawrence school district to provide inspection services for free said that the inspector, Jim Sherman — who at the time was the county’s zoning and codes director — would serve only in an advisory role, said Sarah Plinsky, assistant county administrator.

Sherman was tasked with inspecting key items such as plumbing, electrical and mechanical work on the school buildings. But the contract between the county and the school district makes it clear the inspector — unlike a standard city of Lawrence building inspector — has no authority to order changes to the projects.

“The district and the county agreed that the county would provide certain advisory services to the district in connection with the construction projects,” Plinsky told the Journal-World in a written response to questions. “The county did not agree to ensure compliance with building codes or enforce violations.”

Superintendent Rick Doll said the school district agreed to the contract because it had been put in a difficult situation by the city of Lawrence. The school district previously had asked to have about $280,000 in city building permit fees waived as part of the school improvement projects. Despite waiving fees for other types of projects in the city, commissioners declined to waive the fees for the school district. Then commissioners surprised the district by saying they would exempt the school projects from the city’s building codes and allow the district to find its own inspectors.

“The school district was forced to go elsewhere to obtain building code inspections, and the county offered its services,” Doll wrote in a response to Journal-World questions.

The city, however, was ready to offer its building code inspection services, if school district officials agreed to pay the standard building permit fees that are charged to other projects throughout the city.

The lack of an authorized building inspector for the school projects has left some officials in the building code industry scratching their heads.

Tim Ryan, Overland Park’s codes administrator, and Jerry Mallory, Johnson County’s chief building officer, said they were surprised the construction project had somehow proceeded without building permits and authorized inspections.

“If inspectors have no enforcement authority, and they are in a different jurisdiction and they find a violation, the contractor can tell them to take a walk,” said Ryan, who has worked in the building safety regulatory profession for 35 years. He has served on the International Code Council board and was one of six presidential appointees to the National Institute of Building Sciences.

Mallory, who has served on a number of national and international building codes committees, agreed.

“Schools are the most important thing we build,” Mallory said. “The absence of oversight can be tragic.”

Doll said the city and the school district will have talks about requiring all remaining school district projects to go through the city’s standard inspection processes, especially now that the county is no longer able to provide the service after Sherman left to take a job in another community.

Doll, however, defended the quality of the projects that have been built thus far. He said that although the county’s inspector had no authority over the projects, the district’s contractors are still required by contract to meet applicable building codes.

“The district is confident in the work of its design professionals, construction management firms and inspection service providers in designing, building and inspecting school projects to code and delivering safe and quality school buildings,” Doll wrote.

Records review

The Journal-World, through a Kansas Open Records request, received the county’s inspection reports for New York and Hillcrest elementary schools. The Journal-World requested the records after an 8-year-old boy was severely injured in August when a 350-pound gate fell on him while he was playing in the school yard. The construction site did not have safety fences despite code requirements for the fences, and the boy and his babysitter wandered onto the property.

The inspection reports show multiple violations of codes, but the reports often do not show when or if the code violations were fixed. Among the examples from the reports:

• Two inspection reports dated Jan. 5 indicate that there were many open electrical junction boxes in areas occupied by children. Doll said that the inspections actually took place on Jan. 3 and 4 and that the electrical boxes were covered when children returned to school. However, there is no inspection report that documents when the boxes were fixed.

• An email from Sherman to Douglas County Administrator Craig Weinaug — Sherman’s boss — detailed that there were “a couple of items that did not pass” inspection when Sherman did his final inspection at New York Elementary before students returned on Jan. 5. But Sherman wrote that “the general contractor and I came up with a plan for them to follow this week so students can use the building and we still maintain safety protocol.” No record of that plan was part of Sherman’s files.

• On Aug. 12, 2014, Sherman said he was inspecting under-slab plumbing at New York Elementary, but there was a 3-inch sewage line that was leaking. Sherman said the workers were fixing it when he left. He passed the inspection despite the leak.

• On Oct. 17, 2014, Sherman said he was inspecting the plumbing at a New York Elementary bathroom. He said he was not called to inspect the cast iron pipes and fixtures inside the walls on the new addition.

“It is covered up now,” Sherman wrote.

That means the plumbing behind the bathroom wall was never inspected by Sherman to ensure pipes and fixtures were up to code.

• At Hillcrest Elementary School, Sherman did an inspection on July 14, 2014, and found that the gas line on the roof was not secured. He approved it even though workers “had not completed the support blocks and clamps.”

• On Jan. 23, Sherman did inspections of mechanical, electrical and plumbing at Hillcrest Elementary. He passed all three inspections but said in his notes, “call me back for the east entrance did not pass.” There is no indication that he did a followup inspection.

At New York Elementary, the inspection reports show that of the 19 inspection entries for New York, Sherman failed to close out eight inspections. After Sherman left the department to take another job in Ottawa, the report status for those eight inspections was changed from open to closed and listed as “NA” rather than passed or failed.

Sherman could not be reached for comment for this story.

Building inspection experts expressed concern about the information contained in the reports.

“A whole lot of things fell through the cracks on this one,” Ryan, the Overland Park codes administrator, said of the process.

Sherman’s work has been in the news before. His inspection of a rural residence for Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has been questioned, and the Douglas County Commission has agreed to conduct a third-party review of its codes inspections department, in part because of the Kobach case. In that case, Kobach was allowed to occupy the residence even though several code requirements were not met, including a requirement for a potable water supply. Sherman’s inspections came after county officials had directed the department to become more accommodating on projects.

On the school project, Doll expressed confidence that the building projects had been built to high quality standards. He noted that in addition to the county inspector, architects and engineers hired by the school district performed routine site observations and maintained written reports.

“We are not aware of any deficiencies noted in inspection reports that have not been fully addressed,” Doll wrote to the Journal-World. “Inspections are intended to point out any deficiencies for contractors to correct.”

Concerns raised

Robert Bausch with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers expressed concerns to Sherman about the quality of some of the electrical work being performed at Cordley Elementary School.

Bausch said in an interview with the Journal-World he told Sherman that a union electrician who was working at Cordley Elementary called him in late May or early June to report several electrical safety concerns that he feared would not get fixed.

Bausch said after exchanging emails with Sherman, he felt Sherman’s responses were weak, so he also sent emails to the general contractor, architects and engineers, county commissioners and school district officials.

Bausch said he doesn’t know the outcome because the electrician was laid off a couple days later.

“I didn’t want to get into a war with (Sherman),” Bausch said. “But I have young kids, and I would not want my kids going to a school that had potential electrical issues.”

Doll said the district was not aware of any construction problems that were left unfixed.

The email records of the county also show that Sherman had received complaints of unlicensed electricians working at Quail Run Elementary school. In an email to Bausch, Sherman indicated that he knew of concerns of unlicensed electricians working on the site, but indicated that he had limited ability to address those issues.

Doll said ensuring that certified electricians were used on the project was the responsibility of the contractor, and the district is following up with the contractor on that issue.

The district also acknowledged it received a complaint from a parent about an issue involving a tar machine that was used on the roofing portion of the project at New York Elementary.

Erin Adamson said she took her son to New York Elementary in February and began noticing a strong odor of tar smoke from a block away. When they got into the school, Adamson said the air in the hallway and several classrooms was hazy, and the smell was overwhelming.

She said several students and teachers were wheezing and hacking as a result. Adamson called the superintendent’s office after she learned the New York principal was not in the building that day.

In an email response to Adamson seven months later, Doll said he remembered the incident, and said the district took appropriate and quick action. He said roofing work was stopped that day, the tar pot was moved to a different location, and schedules were changed so more of the roofing work was done while students were not in attendance.

Adamson reached out to the Journal-World with the story of the tar incident after reading a previous Journal-World article in which a district spokeswoman said no safety concerns had been reported to the district at the New York Elementary School project. Adamson said she viewed that as an inaccurate statement.

On Friday, Doll said the discrepancy was the result of a difference of opinion about what constituted a safety concern.

“We would not necessarily view a complaint about an unpleasant odor as a life safety concern,” Doll said. “When Ms. Adamson reported the odor, we immediately took action to remedy that issue.”

Fire marshal discussion

An official with the Kansas Office of the State Fire Marshal said they soon will be reaching out to the school district to discuss the project.

Brenda McNorton, the fire marshal’s chief of prevention, said her office has authority to enforce building codes and was surprised to learn from a reporter that the school district had a contract with the county for inspection services.

Doll said the Fire Marshal’s Office was made aware that the city of Lawrence would not be doing its regular inspection process.

The Fire Marshal’s Office did inspect portions of the school district’s projects, but it is unclear why it did not become the lead inspection agency on the projects. The Fire Marshal’s Office offers such a program, and it is frequently used in smaller communities that don’t have their own building inspectors. Inspectors with the Fire Marshal’s Office — unlike the advisory inspections offered by the county — have the ability to issue code violations.

“I’m not sure why the school district would have allowed (Sherman) to do the inspections,” McNorton said. “It is up to the school district to explain why they allowed someone into the district to do inspections. We will cross that bridge with them.”

McNorton said the state fire marshal is reviewing the county and school district’s contract, and Sherman’s inspection records. The Fire Marshal’s Office plans to call the district to schedule a meeting.

Doll said the district would welcome the conversation with the office.