report of the board code exploratory committee - snco.us report complete final.pdf · the board...

Report of The Board Code Exploratory Committee

November 18, 2015 SUMMARY: Since the early 1950’s, Shawnee County has administered a building permit (formerly zoning permit) procedure but does not administer a building code. With no building code, there is no verification that structures being built in the County are in compliance with a minimum construction standard, thus potentially compromising public safety and sustained structural value. In recognition of this situation, the County Commission appointed the Building Code Exploratory Committee (BCEC) to investigate possible advantages and disadvantages to the County by the adoption of a building code. Instead of defining a building code program for the County, the Committee concentrated on identifying potential public benefits afforded by the implementation of a building code. Over the course of nine (9) meetings, including two (2) public meetings, the Committee concluded it was to Shawnee County’s advantage and its citizens to adopt a building code for the unincorporated area. On November 18, 2015, the BCEC adopted this report and recommended the County Commission move forward with development of a County building code by a vote of 7-2.

INTRODUCTION On May 14, 2015, the Shawnee County Board of Commissioners appointed a 13-member committee to explore the potential public benefits of adopting a building code for the unincorporated area. This report represents the findings, rational and recommendations of the committee regarding the question of adopting a minimum building code for the unincorporated area. BUILDING CODE EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE Committee Appointment. On May 14, 2015, the Shawnee County Board of Commissioners considered a request by the Shawnee County Planning Department to appoint an exploratory committee to examine the validity and feasibility of adopting a building code applicable to unincorporated Shawnee County. A 13-member committee was appointed consisting of the following members:

Brian Jacques, Chair, Planning Commission Nancy Johnson, Planning Commission Robert Archer, County Commissioner

Scott Gales, Architect, Architect One, P.A. Charlie Campbell, Topeka Winn Supply

Chuck Dultmeier, Dultmeier Homes R. Neil Carlson, Plumbing by Carlson

Harold Ramsey, Ramsey Custom Homes Dave Watson, Attorney/Builder

Karl McNorton, Soldier Township Fire Chief Richard Faulkner, City of Topeka Building Official Ivan Weichert, Topeka Home Builders Association

John Lyle, Professional Engineering Inspections

Charge of Committee. The committee was charged with investigating the possible advantages and disadvantages to adopting a building code for unincorporated Shawnee County and to return with a report and recommendation by December 1, 2015. Meeting Schedule. The committee convened for the first time on July 23, 2015, and maintained a two-week meeting schedule conducting a total of 10 meetings including two public meetings. The Planning Department provided staff support to the committee by preparing agendas, assembling and copying materials, arranging for speakers, arranging for meeting space, taking minutes, etc. Special Website. In an effort to make the work of the committee as open and transparent as possible, a special website dedicated to the Building Code Exploratory Committee was set up: http://www.snco.us/planning/building_code_committee.asp. The website provides information regarding the work and purpose of the committee, the committee’s schedule, full agenda’s and minutes, along with access to all resource materials submitted to the committee for their review and consideration.

http://www.snco.us/planning/building_code_committee.asp

HISTORY Since the early 1950’s, Shawnee County has only administered a building permit procedure which determines whether the proposed use of a property is consistent with the zoning district in which located and that the proposed structure complies with the setback and dimensional requirements of the district. Originally, these were called “zoning permits” because their only function was to confirm the proposed structure was compliant with the requirements of the Zoning Regulations. In later years, as they are today, they became known as “building permits” and continue to serve the same function. In many respects, the term “building permit” is a misnomer because normally it implies that a structure is built in compliance with an adopted code. In unincorporated Shawnee County that is not the case. With no building code, there is no field inspection to verify a home is being built in accordance with a minimum standard throughout its construction. As a result, structures are being built that may not comply with a nationally recognized building code, potentially compromising public safety and sustained structural value. The same is also true for commercial and industrial structures in the county. For the past 60+ years, the unincorporated area of Shawnee County has seen substantial growth and now accounts for roughly 28% of the county’s total population. Accordingly, the bulk of new construction in the unincorporated area has been in the form of residential dwellings. Table 1 identifies the proportion of building permits issued by type between the City of Topeka and unincorporated Shawnee County for the years 2010 - 2015. Table 1. City of Topeka and Shawnee County Building Permit Totals

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

City County City County City County City County City County City County*

Residence

Single Family 65 109 78 96 88 102 84 111 82 126 31 50

Two Family 47 0 3 3 9 4 1 4 6 1 3 2

Three & Four 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Five or More 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Ind. Buildings 7 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 0

Com. Buildings 58 9 20 6 22 8 13 2 29 8 8 3

TOTALS 183 118 104 105 122 114 102 117 122 135 44 55

* Through May 2015 The meaning and consequences of not having a building code in place in the unincorporated area became the focus of the Building Code Exploratory Committee along with identifying potential advantages and disadvantages to implementing such a code. WHAT ARE BUILDING CODES? Building codes are a collection of regulations adopted by a governing body that are involved with the physical structure and healthful conditions of buildings and building sites. The codes set formal rules for the design of buildings, the way buildings are to be built, the materials to construct buildings, and, the overall performance of buildings.

STATE OF BUILDING CODES IN KANSAS County Building Code Programs. The adoption and administration of building codes in Kansas is a local issue and not mandated by state law. In 2013, the Kansas Corporation Commission conducted a study of Kansas communities to identify those that have adopted a building code and what the adopted codes were. Table 2 identifies those counties in Kansas with adopted building codes, their rank by population, and the building codes they have adopted. Table 2. Kansas Counties with Adopted Building Codes Rank County Currently Adopted Building Codes

1 Johnson 2012 IRC, IBC, IMC, IPC, IPMC, IFC, IECC, IEBC; 2011 NEC 2 Sedgwick 2006 IBC; 2012 IRC, IFC, IMC, IFGC; 2012 UPC; 2014 NEC

4 Wyandotte 2009 IRC, IBC, IECC, IFC, IMC, IECC, IPMC; 2009 UPC; 2008 NEC; current NFPA 5 Douglas 2012 IRC, IBC, IPC, IMC, IFGC, 2011 NEC (NFPA 70) 8 Butler 2003 IBC, IRC,UPC; 2004 54 & 58 NFPA LP Gas Codes; 2000 UMC; 2002 NEC

10 Saline Saline Co. has adopted the City of Salina building codes for commercial and industrial buildings only. 2006 IBC, IFC; 2006 UMC, UPC; 2005 NEC

13 Geary 2006 IBC, IEBC, IRC, IMC, IPC; 2005 NEC 19 Miami 2006 IBC, IRC, IFC, IPC, IMC, IFGC; 2005 NEC

23 Franklin 2003 IBC, IRC, IPC, IMC; 2002 NEC

25 Seward 2006 IBC, IRC, IMC, IPC, IFGC, IFC; 2008 NEC; 2002 LSC

ABBREVIATIONS: IBC = International Building Code; IFC = International Fire Code; IFGC = International Fuel Gas Code; IMC = International Mechanical Code; IPC = International Plumbing Code; IPMC = International Property Maintenance Code; IPSDC = International Private Sewage Disposal Code; IRC = International Residential Code; NEC = National Electrical Code; NFPA = National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code; UCBC = Uniform Code for Building Conservation; UMC = Uniform Mechanical Code; UPC = Uniform Plumbing Code; LSC = Life Safety Code

Shawnee County is the third largest county in Kansas in terms of population. Four (4) of the five (5) most populated counties in Kansas, and six (6) of the top 10 have adopted building codes administered through dedicated building code programs. Saline County, the tenth largest county, is the exception as they have adopted the City of Salina’s building codes for commercial and industrial building only for the unincorporated area and which are administered through the City of Salina. Kansas Fire Prevention Code. As noted, the State of Kansas does not mandate the adoption of a building code by Kansas communities but does set in place certain construction requirements pursuant to the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. The state fire marshal adopts reasonable rules and regulations for the safeguarding of life and property from fire, explosion and hazardous materials. These safeguards, protective measures or means adapted to render inherently safe any building or other place in which people work, live or congregate for any purpose, except buildings used wholly as dwelling houses containing no more than two families. By regulation the State Fire Marshal has adopted the 2006 International Building and Fire Codes as well as other code documents developed by the National Fire Protection Association. These codes are the minimum prevention code throughout the state. They do not apply to 1 or 2 family dwellings.

PUBLIC MEETINGS The Exploratory Committee held two (2) public meetings to solicit input from the building and development community and also to obtain input from the general public regarding the possibility of adopting a building code for the county. Building and Development Community Public Meeting. Approximately 400 invitations were sent by email to Topeka and Shawnee County area builders and developers inviting them to a special meeting to discuss their views concerning the adoption of a building code by Shawnee County. The meeting was held on September 30, 2015, at the Garfield Community Center Shelter House and attended by 11 individuals. Although attended by fewer than the committee had hoped, those that spoke offered good comments. Three (3) individuals spoke in favor of the County’s adoption of a building code while one expressed reservations. The minutes of the meeting are attached in Appendix B. In general, those speaking to a building code offered the following comments: The time for a building code in the County was long overdue. Expressed surprise that the County still

did not have a minimum construction code in place. The point of a building code was to protect the public that otherwise do not know anything about

building a house. Adopting a building code would add some expense to constructing a home but with inspections they

would get what they paid for. Not all contractors are the same, with a code it would make them compete evenly. Codes can’t address everything but having a minimum standard in place was important. Cited the Danny Bailey home with all the major mistakes in framing, the concrete and steel and other

aspects. If there had been some minimum standard in place and inspections, they believed the house might still be standing today. That was a major example of where a building code might have been beneficial to the owner that otherwise was clueless about the building process.

Energy codes should also be considered as part of minimum construction standards. Recognized that the quality of work also depended on the quality of the inspector. If the County were to adopt a code, it should be the same as the City of Topeka code to minimize

confusion. In general, the individual expressing reservations offered the following comments: Was not necessarily against a building code as much as thought it was bad timing for one. The cost of

building a new home versus what older homes are selling for in the county made it tough for builders. Felt anything that added to the cost would be detrimental.

Stressed that most people moving out to the county liked their freedom and not having to put up with government red tape.

Stressed the point that inspections didn’t mean quality. Been to places with strong building code programs and seen the houses being built and certified and thought the home were bad.

Thought it came down to the due diligence by the homeowner to assure they were hiring a reputable builder.

Did not want to see codes adopted that were not geared for Shawnee County’s needs. Was concerned that once a building code was adopted it would start the ball rolling and take on more

and more things. These comments cannot be said to be representative of the larger building and development community but do offer good insight of those working in the field. A larger question may also be asked as to why there was such a low turnout. If only 10% of those invited had showed up, that would have been 40 people. The lack of attendance may be a reflection of a lack of concern regarding the adoption of a building code. But then again, you cannot assume what you do not know. All we know is that out of 400 invitations sent, only 11 were present to listen and offer comments to the committee. Meeting for the General Public. On October 14, 2015, the committee held a special meeting to obtain input of the general public regarding the adoption of a building code by Shawnee County. A press release was issued to all media outlets the week prior to the scheduled special meeting. The story was picked up by the Topeka Capital Journal that ran an article in its Sunday, October 10, 2015 edition; and, WIBW radio aired an interview with Barry Beagle, County Planning Director regarding the committee and the purpose of the special meeting. The special meeting was also held at the Garfield Community Center Shelter House and attended by 12 people, most of whom were builders or subcontractors that work in the City of Topeka and Shawnee County. The minutes of the October 14th special meeting are found in Appendix B. In general, those speaking to a building code offered the following comments: As an electrician and volunteer firefighter, was concerned that other contractors were not using the

proper materials and including protective measures. When services were performed on a house that was not up to code, it made the contractor liable for that

home. Concerned about their own children’s personal safety in a home that was not built to a standard. As a firefighter, did not want to go into a burning home that did not have the standard safety measures. Having no codes made the contractors’ jobs very difficult. Working on a home with no codes created liability issues for contractors with their insurance

companies. Hoped for minimum standard code requirements but did not want it to go overboard. Would be nice to have minimum code standards that were enforced for every home. Having trained staff who knew the code requirements to complete inspections to make sure homes were

safe. Wanted the other contractors to build to a safe standard. Wanted to protect lives. Built a good reputation because the work performed was above the minimum requirements. Had to refuse jobs because of liability but there were others who would take on the liability. Recognized the number of purchases made from local home improvement stores.

In the past, only licensed contractors could go to a wholesale store to buy equipment or materials. Said the code felt good but it was a big industry. Suggested putting a tax or fee on items purchased from home improvement stores. Suggested a permit be required before a homeowner could buy home improvement items and make

repairs on their own. In general, those speaking in opposition to the proposal offered the following comments: Did not want Shawnee County to be so standardized that there was no innovation in housing. Did not want Shawnee County to restrict houses being built with used materials as they did in the city. Felt the government did not need to regulate how people built their own homes, but was in favor of full

disclosure of how a house was built. Some residents in the County did not want the County to come in and inspect everything they did. Did not want the County to limit their view of how people should build their houses on what standard. Thought a standard could be changed and be just as efficient. If someone deviated from a standard, the County should not get in the way. The following questions were also raised at the public meeting: How would it affect the insurability of older homes that lower income people lived in if they were

inspected and not up to date? What would the affect be on new homes or old homes? Asked if new construction/improvements in the County would have to be completed by a licensed

contractor/tradesman? Questioned whether it only applied to the three mile area? Wanted to know if there was a big problem in the County with not having licensed contractors

completing the work? Didn’t know if the end all would be solved? Questioned how the minimum codes would be applied to home renovations/home additions and if it

would affect the remainder of the home. Agreed with the adoption of a minimum code because it would make it safe for everyone. What would the program cost? Would the City take over the three mile area? EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION It is the consensus of the Exploratory Committee that Shawnee County should adopt a building code for the unincorporated area. This is not to say that every member of the Committee shared the same opinion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of establishing a minimum construction standard, but on balance, the advantages to Shawnee County for adopting a building code outweighed the disadvantages. One member expressed a dissenting opinion, opposing “the adoption of a code without further exploration of how enforcement, if any, of the code would be undertaken and paid for. Give the extremely low interest expressed by the citizens of the community, the low interest expressed by the various trades, and the relatively small number of counties (less than 10%) in Kansas that have actually adopted such a code, the issue seems to be a solution looking for a problem.”

The primary reason for the adoption of a building code is public health and safety; the assurance that a structure is built in accordance with a minimum construction standard. This is not to say that adoption of a building code will eliminate all problems, but through plan review and field inspection, there is a much greater chance that the foundational elements of construction such as footing and foundation, framing, plumbing, electrical systems, etc., will meet the minimum standard at the time of construction. As with any collaborative process, not everyone on the Committee was of the same opinion as to the identification of possible advantages and disadvantages let alone their significance relative to one another. As with any new program, there are uncertainties as to efficiency and effectiveness and outcomes to be achieved. As a means of examining varying viewpoints, the Committee conducted a SWOT analysis. The results of the SWOT analysis helped to define potential advantages and disadvantages to the County for adopting a building code. An explanation of the SWOT analysis and the results of the Committee’s analysis is provided in the following section. SWOT Analysis. As part of its deliberation, the Building Code Exploratory Committee conducted a SWOT analysis to assess the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats associated with Shawnee County adopting a building code for the unincorporated area. SWOT is an analytical tool commonly used by businesses, organizations and even governments to assess their strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. It is a holistic way to think about the function, mission and performance of the organization and how effective it will be moving forward. As part of this process, the committee decided to use the results of the SWOT analysis as the basis of the committee’s recommendation to the County Commission. In conducting the SWOT analysis, the Committee took into consideration testimony from local insurance agents; the building and development community; the Miami County chief building official; the regional representative of the International Code Council (ICC); testimony from the two (2) public meetings; and, countless pages of resource materials supplied by the planning department (Appendix C). Table 3 represents the results of the SWOT Analysis conducted by the committee. The responses appearing in each category go to the question of Shawnee County implementing a building code for the unincorporated area. The terms of the SWOT analysis are defined as follow: Strengths: characteristics of the proposal that give it an advantage. Weaknesses: characteristics that place the proposal at a disadvantage. Opportunities: elements that the proposal could exploit to its advantage. Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the proposal. Responses appearing in each category have been prioritized in descending order of importance. An explanation of each item appearing in the SWOT table follows.

Table 3. SWOT Analysis Strengths Weaknesses 1. Health and safety 2. Safe harbor 3. Reduced property loss 4. Procedural continuity 5. Increase in property values in the long term 6. Standard quality of materials

1. Bureaucracy 2. Speed 3. Uncertainty of grandfathered structures

Opportunities Threats 1. Insurance savings (BCEGS) 2. Educate inexperienced/substandard builders 3. Competitive market 4. Partnership with the City of Topeka

1. Gaps in insurance coverage (building ordinance of law)

2. Cost of program 3. Cost of product (fees)

STRENGTHS: 1. Health and Safety. Basic health and safety would be provided for the occupants of a building or home

through the proper installation of building materials set by minimum building codes.

2. Safe Harbor. The benefit and sense of a “Safe Harbor” is the occupant of a building or home knowing they would be compliant with meeting the minimum building codes. It also would provide “Safe Harbor” for the developers, builders or designers. It didn’t mean that something couldn’t go wrong but at least the building owner or homeowner now would meet an industry standard. So from an insurability, resale ability or used as a rental property, there wasn’t an unknown issue. It would provide a peace of mind by meeting the minimum standard, the “Safe Harbor”, and that was important. If not, the building owner or homeowner wouldn’t know until there was an issue and they started spending money to fix something that wasn’t built to minimum building codes.

3. Reduced Property Loss. Most of the building codes were a result of a tragedy or disaster that has occurred through time. There would be a reduction in property loss with buildings and homes being built to minimum building codes.

4. Procedural Continuity. There would be an expectation that inspections would be completed to a certain standard. If something did not meet the standard, there would be an appeals process. Currently with no procedural continuity, there could be a difference of opinions and there was nothing to indicate who had the final say. It would establish who the final arbiter was of the decision. If the decision wasn’t liked, there was an appeal process and continuity in a decision. Both parties maybe right but there would be a different perspective on it.

5. Increase in Property Values in the Long Term. Over time, positive increases in property values would result from the improved quality of buildings and homes. It would create a potential broader tax base because property values would be raised. It would create some kind of standardization. It wouldn’t just be an increase in property values.

6. Standard Quality of Materials. The quality of building materials would be uniform through an established building code program. Testing is completed on many of the building materials accepted by certain building types. They needed to use non-combustible materials and those types were listed with

the details as to the minimum testing standards. Through the inspection process, unqualified or lower quality products would be identified.

WEAKNESSES: 1. Bureaucracy. Building schedules would be impacted due to the need for inspections to be scheduled

creating a possible disadvantage. It was probably going to take longer to get something built.

2. Speed. Buildings would be built at a slower pace due to the permitting and inspection processes.

3. Uncertainty of Grandfathered Structures. With building codes in place, remodeling would have to be completed to code. Many structures would be grandfathered. People would assume their structures were to code when they weren’t.

OPPORTUNITIES: 1. Insurance Savings (BCEGS). With a building code program in place, Shawnee County would be rated

through the Building Code Effectiveness Grading System (BCEGS) through the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The rating would be based on the effectiveness of our building code program by having a dedicated department, a chief building official, qualified staff and the completion of plan reviews and field inspections. It would be viewed as an opportunity to improve insurance rates. With an improved ISO rating, we would get a premium discount based upon reduced risk.

2. Educate Inexperienced/Substandard Builders. There would be an opportunity to educate and inform builders who were new or not familiar with the building codes.

3. Competitive Market. Shawnee County would be more competitive with other jurisdictions from an economic development perspective. Out of town interests were looking at Shawnee County for quality of life factors such as building codes.

4. Partnership with the City of Topeka. In order to avoid creating a redundant framework, Shawnee County could possibly partner with the City of Topeka on some aspects of their building code program within the unincorporated area.

THREATS: 1. Gaps in Insurance Coverage (Building Ordinance of Law). A potential gap in insurance coverage may

be created because the building code would require a home to be restored based upon the higher standard from how it was originally constructed if the homeowner did not have Building Ordinance of Law coverage included in their homeowner policy. There was a risk to the homeowner who believed they would be able to rebuild their home to what it was before a loss based on their insurance policy. But if their property was not up to code and they had to bring it up to code and didn’t have Building Ordinance of Law coverage, they could end up in a situation where they couldn’t return to their home even to its present condition.

2. Cost of Program. The cost for the administration of the building code program would need to be

established.

3. Cost of Product (Fees). The cost of the building program fees including inspections, various permits, etc.

Consensus Recommendation. It is the consensus recommendation of the Committee to support the adoption of a building code applicable to unincorporated Shawnee County. The adoption and implementation of a building code program would provide a level of assurance as to the character and quality of structures built and maintained in the county. As with any new program, there are uncertainties as to how well it will achieve expected outcomes. What is known however, is that there is no county program currently in place to assure that structures are designed and built in accordance with a minimum construction standard. Building codes can provide uniformity of building practice, something that can lower construction costs. Building codes can also level the playing field for contractors by ensuring that all must meet a minimum standard of construction. Most importantly, building codes contribute to a sense of community well being and quality, and, can make a community a desirable location for businesses to locate. Additional comments by members of the Exploratory Committee are found in Appendix A.

EExxhhiibbiitt AA CCoommmmeennttss ooff IInnddiivviidduuaall CCoommmmiitttteeee MMeemmbbeerrss

CCoommmmeennttss ooff IInnddiivviidduuaall CCoommmmiitttteeee MMeemmbbeerrss The following comments are of the nine (9) committee members present on November 18, 2015, that acted to recommend the County Commission move forward with the adoption of a building code by a vote of 7-2. Chuck Dultmeier: I believe there is a need for a building code in Shawnee County. The adoption of a code would be a progressive move for the development community. The lack of interest demonstrated by the public’s attendance in the committees open meeting leads me to believe the community is unaware that there is no minimum standard of building codes in the construction of new or existing homes. The safety and structural integrity of their homes are at risk. Thank you for your consideration. Dave Watson: Opposes the adoption of a code without further exploration of how enforcement, if any, of the code would be undertaken and paid for. Given the extremely low interest expressed by the citizens of the community, the low interest expressed by the various trades, and the relatively small number of counties (less than 10%) in Kansas that have actually adopted such a code, the issue seems to be a solution looking for a problem.

EExxhhiibbiitt BB MMiinnuutteess ooff tthhee BBuuiillddiinngg CCooddee EExxpplloorraattoorryy

CCoommmmiitttteeee

SHAWNEE COUNTY BUILDING CODE EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Shawnee County Annex

Thursday, July 23, 2015 – 6:30 p.m.

Members Present: Nancy Johnson, Brian Jacques, Robert Archer, Karl McNorton, Ivan Weichert, Richard Faulkner, R. Neil Carlson,

Harold Ramsey, Chuck Dultmeier, John Lyle, Dave Watson, Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales

Members Absent: None

Planning Staff: Barry T. Beagle, Planning Director; Anna Ortega, Zoning/Floodplain Administrator; Joelee Charles, Administrative

Assistant

1. Welcome

Mr. Beagle convened the meeting at 6:33 p.m. and introduced himself. He was grateful for their participation on the committee and

asked everyone to introduce themselves.

2. Introductions

Nancy Johnson--Planning Commission Member. She has been pushing for this committee for some time.

Brian Jacques--Planning Commission Member and attorney for Sloan Law Firm.

Bob Archer--County Commissioner.

Karl McNorton--Fire Chief for Soldier Township Fire Department.

Ivan Weichert--CEO for the Topeka Home Builders Association. He has worked as the Zoning Administrator for Shawnee County

and has been a builder.

Richard Faulkner--Division Director, City’s Development Services and Property Maintenance Code. He said it was always a positive

when the community takes steps to implement minimal standards for the safety of the people and pleased to participate.

Neil Carlson--Plumbing by Carlson. 25-30 years ago when Vic Miller, Winnie Kingman and Don Cooper were County

Commissioners, Don had asked a group to put together a code. Chuck Lower wrote a mechanical section, Neil wrote a plumbing

section, D. L. Smith wrote an electrical section and the builders wrote a building code. They took it to the County Commission and

Vic said they didn’t need it. Mr. Carlson said the County has needed one forever. They basically wrote their own code and based it

on the International Code and the old Topeka Code. They spent hundreds of hours putting it together.

Harold Ramsey--Ramsey Custom Homes. He has always been in favor of a building code. It wasn’t for the builders but for the

betterment of our community and our image so various organizations could draw companies into our town. He sold his home at Lake

Sherwood three years ago to the second highest official at Mars. When they went through the home, the official asked about the code.

He told him there was no code in the County. The official said he had traveled all over the country and never came across that. The

official said for Mars or any other corporation it was an interesting topic because they want to make sure when they move executives

into a town and had to transfer them to other places, they wanted to ensure they had something of quality since executives’ homes got

bought by the corporation and then were resold. They wanted homes built in accordance with some sort of code.

Chuck Dultmeier--Building Developer. He said he was pro code and enforcement. He was on a committee when the City adopted the

2009 with amendments. He said the amendments were important because some of the issues in today’s code were not tolerable in

their industry and not as cost efficient in some areas. He would have a lot of suggestions that the City adopted that he liked.

John Lyle--Professional Engineering Inspections. He said he had inspected a lot of homes through structural foundation, engineering

work and worked in expert litigation. He said he came with no opinion but would probably form one as they proceed.

Anna Ortega--Current Zoning Administrator for the Planning Department.

Dave Watson--Builder and Attorney. He saw both sides and handled property litigation and builds homes in the Cities of Bentley,

Riley, Topeka and Shawnee County. He said he was more concerned about the development of the community as far as economics.

He was worried about how the code might impact the ability of the County to continue to grow its tax base.

Charlie Campbell--McElroy’s, President of EnviroServe and host of a radio program on AM 580 every Saturday.

Scott Gales--Chairman of the City of Topeka’s Planning Commission and an architect at Architect One.

Mr. Beagle thanked them for their participation and volunteering their time. He asked everyone to review the roster and notify

Planning staff if there were any changes to be made.

3. Charge of Committee

Mr. Beagle said the County Commission approved the committee on May 14th

to look at the viability and feasibility of implementing a

building code. Namely, the public benefits associated with the code and the possible advantages or disadvantages of implementing a

code. A final report and recommendation is due to the County Commission by December 1. He encouraged everyone to attend the

County Commission meetings to offer additional testimony and comments on the subject.

Mr. Beagle said a building permit procedure has been in place since the 1950s which ensures a builder is compliant with the zoning

district and the setbacks and dimensional requirements are correct. No inspections are performed. He hoped the builders were

building according to the site plan. There were no guarantees of the homes being built safely or built in accordance with minimum

construction standards. In the past 60 years, there has been substantial growth and development in the County. Approximately

26-28% of the County’s total population resides outside the city limits. He provided a comparison of the building permits totals issued

from the County and the City.

Mr. Beagle said in his request to the County Commission included by first laying a foundation by looking at the public benefits and

any disadvantages. The committee’s objective was to complete a high level review looking at all the various aspects of administering

a building code, what would possibly be gained and the negative impacts and then preparing a report to submit to the County

Commission. The Commission could then decide whether to accept or reject a building code. He didn’t want to get into the details.

Those would be decided in the future should the County Commission move beyond this step.

Mr. Beagle said the Planning Department would support them during the process. Minutes would be taken of the meetings to keep an

accurate record. The Minutes and an Agenda would be sent to them before the next meeting. He asked if anyone had any questions.

Mr. Weichert mentioned there was about four months to prepare the Committee’s recommendation to the County Commission.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if a code was adopted, would it have to be enforced. Mr. Beagle said it would. Mr. Beagle said the Commission

could move forward with their report and recommendation if they were in favor of a building code. Or they could reject the idea and

take no further action. If it was moved forward, either the current committee or another committee would be appointed to get into the

details of the building code.

Mr. Watson said he saw it as two separate things: if a code should be adopted and if there should be an enforcement mechanism. Two

of the jurisdictions that he builds in had a code but it wasn’t enforced. He thought it made sense. It would set a framework by which

the people buying a house could sue if there was non compliance. It would set criteria as to what the house must meet. Mr. Beagle

said it was a fair topic for discussion. Assuming the overall recommendation was to adopt a building code, the second step would

define how it would be implemented.

Mr. Carlson said in the City he was a licensed, insured, bonded contractor plumber. If he worked in the County, he was legally liable

to plumb a house not necessarily to the City of Topeka’s code but to a reasonable code. He would have to meet all EPA standards,

backflow prevention, everything that would cause a health or safety issue in a home. The problem with not having a code was there

was numerous people doing plumbing that didn’t know those standards. They plumb a house and the original owner moves in and is

happy. The owner sells the house a few years later and the home is inspected and doesn’t meet anything. The owner then calls a

licensed contractor and they tell the owner it has to be torn out. As a licensed contractor, they are responsible to build to a code—a

reasonable code—minimum standards. The guy who just goes out and builds has no responsibility, is not licensed, might be insured

and certainly not bonded. Mr. Carlson said you needed enforcement. In the City, he could build his own house. He could get a

permit and do everything as long as he would be living in the house and it was inspected. He would have to do it right. It would be

inspected.

Mr. Ramsey said by comparison in Carbondale you had to get a building permit and there were contractor inspectors who inspected

every phase of the construction.

Mr. Archer asked how much it would cost for all the inspections and oversight. Mr. Ramsey said $250. Mr. Archer questioned the

fee and asked how much it would cost to monitor the phases of construction. He said he believed it would be $5,000. He thought they

needed to know how much and who was going to pay for it. He said he didn’t think people from East Topeka should be subsidizing

construction of a $500,000 house in Southwest Shawnee County.

Mr. Ramsey asked if they were trying to put a better image forward to the outward community and trying to draw businesses and

corporation into Topeka and Shawnee County in order to bring jobs. Or were they going to remain the same. The population has

remained the same. Do they want more corporations to move in to bring more jobs and was that important. The guys at Mars told

him it was. He thought it was very important. More jobs were just subsidized because of the plant addition at Mars. It was a great

deal for everybody and maybe more houses would be built.

Mr. Archer said there was an overall community benefit with that. When he was buying and building a house, it only benefited him

directly. Not the community as a whole in general.

Mr. Gales said he disagreed with Mr. Archer’s comments. If a house was built and not inspected, when the owner couldn’t sell it for

their asking price because the inspection failed, then the price had to be lowered. The homeowner across the street then questioned

their value. He has seen neighborhoods where prices dropped down because of poor construction in the neighborhood. The real estate

agents share information.

Mr. Faulkner said the issues of structure safety and program cost were valid. He was all for safety. The structure of the program is

what would generate the income to help pay for it. If you are going to have building permit fees, then you should have licensed

contractors. There should be a charge for contractors to be licensed which helps to subsidize the cost for the program. He said it

might cover the cost but if it doesn’t, it will pay for a substantial amount of it. The benefit that you gain that could possibly be seen in

the tax base by increased businesses coming to the community where they know things are safe. There is some benefit to it.

Mr. Watson asked Mr. Faulkner how many staff was in his office and the cost of the program. Mr. Faulkner said the City generates

almost $1 million from permit fees and licenses. He said the cost pays for itself. There were ten staff members. He said the program

cost was approximately $600,000. Mr. Archer asked if the fees that were charged covered the cost of program. Mr. Faulkner agreed

but said commercial and industrial building was down. They also needed to consider the Mars expansion and the new Walmart. They

were generating some income but not from new homes or duplexes. It was coming from commercial development.

Mr. Watson said the City is seeing the commercial development. In the County, they probably wouldn’t see the level of commercial

development that the City generates. The profits coming from commercial development subsidizes the residential. Then the

residential in the County would not pay for itself.

Mr. Faulkner said it would generate some income. He said it was priceless to say we have a building code and we care about our

structures. It would possibly generate some positive feedback and may increase the industrial and commercial building in the County.

You never know.

Mr. Ramsey asked why the City staff could not be used to inspect for the County. Mr. Faulkner said he thought there was some issue

before he started and didn’t know what happened. Mr. Ramsey said it seemed that they were building another bureaucracy where

there was one in place that was trained, organized and ready. Others agreed.

Mr. Beagle said they were getting into the details. That was not their goal at this level. They were looking at public safety, what it

would mean for insurance purposes, etc. for having a building code within the County. They needed to develop the argument for the

benefit of the County Commission as to why they should have a building code or not.

Mr. Watson said that building codes were great. He questioned what the effect would be on the community and what the cost would

be for someone to build a house in the County after the code was adopted. If it was going to cost $5,000 more per house, he would be

opposed to building codes.

Mr. Lyle said the City code only allowed people to work on their house if they lived in it. But if they owned a property they didn’t

live in, they couldn’t work on it. In order to generate revenue, he suggested allowing people to be able to work on their own home as

well as the other houses they own. People were dodging permits because they had a rental house that needed lots of work and

couldn’t afford to hire a licensed contractor. Also, it didn’t make any sense for someone with no qualifications to be able to build a

house and live there for two years and sell it and then it wasn’t okay for someone to work on a house they owned but didn’t live in.

He performed inspections as a licensed engineer. He heard a lot of complaints about contractors. When he inspected a home, it had to

be done right. If it was done wrong, he didn’t care. It would be done right by the time they got approval. He said it would invite

more people to get permits who couldn’t afford a contractor. If you owned the house, there was no reason for you to work on it

without a permit. Also, he suggested introducing a fine schedule with a hefty fine which would encourage people to get permits.

People could get a permit and fix it themselves. Those who didn’t get a permit would be fined. You shouldn’t have to hire a licensed

contractor to work on it if you own it. Also, people should not be allowed to go out and do plumbing for someone else if they didn’t

own that home. If the County had inspections and there was a problem, they could tell them to tear it out since it wasn’t done right.

Mr. Carlson said the nuts and bolts of Mr. Lyle’s comments they lived with everyday. By their code, the homeowner or the owner

could replace pretty much everything except major work. Every apartment complex in town had a maintenance guy that did all the

work. He didn’t have a big problem with that. Where they ran into problems was if there was a serious drainage problem. City code

wasn’t that restrictive.

Mr. Faulkner said the owner didn’t want to hire a professional. He wanted to do the work himself but didn’t know how to do it.

Inspectors were going out and having to tell the owner how to fix it. It was basically an inspector giving lessons. The inspector was

teaching the owner how to do the job and the owner paid a charge every time. A code was needed because there were people out there

who wanted to do it themselves but it was unsafe. It took time and wasted money to redo things. Most building codes were minimal

safety standards. If people were building things that were below the minimal standards, it wouldn’t be good for anyone.

Mr. Dultmeier said he thought the future committee could handle the details but was concerned how the program would be financed.

He was concerned about a possible shortfall since there wasn’t the commercial dollars to make up the difference. Mr. Archer said

professionals weren’t cheap. Mr. Dultmeier said he wanted licensed contractors, inspections and a code. It affected them more than

anyone. He said he believed they needed to get over the hurdle of the financing first.

Mr. Carlson said they could contact Douglas County to see how they financed it. There was a City of Lawrence code and a Douglas

County code. He thought they had two combination inspectors that inspected everything.

Mr. Archer asked how they had two people inspecting when the City had a staff of ten. Mr. Dultmeier said the City had cut back on

inspectors since they built out and didn’t have any place to go. He said he knew there was a line between the City and the County.

Since the City had the big funds from the commercial, he wondered if they could get support from them in the serviceable area.

Mr. Campbell said what they were trying to figure out first was if they wanted a building code or not. They were a group of people

fighting with the idiosyncracies of the unintended consequences of code enforcement that existed. Topeka’s code does a great job and

they have a lot of inspectors. But they were still finding homeowners that had been inspected that had issues. He said he recently

looked at a home inspection report that said the shower vent should probably not go into the furnace flue and it would probably cost

about $200 to fix. The people who bought the home waited 18 months to call his staff to fix it. The entire bathroom was not vented.

The numbers they had been talking about were just for building. He said they were overlooking some things: electrical inspections,

service upgrades, panel upgrades, unit replacements, trade permits, remodels, room additions, etc. Major construction completed to an

existing home. If they looked at those number, it would totally changes the figures they were provided. He said he just got his invoice

from the City of Topeka for inspections for the last four weeks and it was 13 pages long.

Mr. Watson said the City did a great job. Homes were built better because of the City’s inspections. It just costs money.

Mr. Campbell said he didn’t think any of them would disagree that the County needed a code.

Ms. Johnson said she thought they needed to discuss how to make a recommendation to the County but identify what the barriers

were. What questions were the Commissioners going to ask so they could be prepared. It was all about the money. She said she

thought the majority agreed there should be a code.

Mr. Carlson said when they put the code together 25 years ago, one of the barriers they had to overcome was the farmers. Farmers did

a lot of work themselves. They exempted the farmers who had over 200 acres from the code. They needed to address those things.

Mr. Gales said he thought that corresponded with how the IBC looked at agricultural facilities. Single family homes were not covered

by the commercial building code. He said the State of Kansas adopted the IBC 2006 and it was applicable state wide. The City of

Topeka adopted 2009. He worked under the assumption that regardless of building in the City or County, as a licensed architect in the

State of Kansas and knowing that the State has a minimum expectation of the 2006 code, all the work he did was with the minimum

expectation of meeting that code. He was confused that the County had not adopted at least the State’s minimum code of 2006. He

asked how it could not be adopted. He thought the State code would be a standard. Mr. Beagle said a code had not been adopted.

Mr. McNorton said he retired from the State Fire Marshall’s office as Chief Deputy State Fire Marshall and administered the building

code for 20 years. The State’s minimum building code and fire code was 2006 of the IBC/IFC. They were looking at 2012. If they

were looking at the minimum of 2012 for state code, the City of Topeka would be behind the curve. He said they did not have a

residential code and their code only applied to commercial buildings. The State Fire Marshall was prohibited from doing anything to

one to two family dwellings unless it was a daycare.

Mr. Gales said he was shocked that a building permit could be issued in the County to build something which would imply something

and yet be indemnified from any liability since the building permit did not meet the minimum state standards. Mr. Beagle said the

building permit process did not state that any inspections were being conducted. Mr. Gales said it wasn’t about inspecting buildings

but there was nothing that said the permit was issued on the basis of a minimum standard. Mr. Beagle agreed. Mr. Gales asked if

anyone had ever sued the County. Mr. Beagle said no. Mr. Dultmeier said it made the contractor liable. Mr. Gales said if someone

got a good attorney, they could sue the County because a building permit was issued and wasn’t based on a minimum standard and a

fee was charged for it.

Ms. Johnson said she had a problem with the person who was building a house and got a building permit but we didn’t know what he

was doing.

Mr. McNorton said in the fire service they saw people who had built their own home and there were safety hazards as a result and the

building burnt down. Or they made modifications to a structure and created a hazard and it collapsed. There wouldn’t be a problem if

the structure was built correctly to begin with.

Mr. Beagle said Shawnee County covered 550 square miles. The Zoning Administrator was responsible for processing building

permits. The Planning staff had a difficult time getting people to acknowledge there was a permitting process let alone show how they

were building a structure. He said the Appraiser’s office assisted by notifying our office of structures that didn’t have a building

permit. Everyone looked at the permitting process for what was it was—a paper tiger. Nobody took it seriously.

Mr. Faulkner said it provided valuable information. The assumption was when you got a building permit the project was going to be

inspected to meet code. A building permit does provide information about the project and was provided to the Appraiser’s office.

Ms. Johnson expressed her frustration how some projects required so many hoops to be completed but in the County you could build a

house without going through any.

Mr. Dultmeier said he thought everyone wanted a building code and he wanted to see licensed contractors. But if you adopted a code,

who was going to fund the enforcement. Even the City admitted probably the residential part was not going to carry itself and that

was all the County had.

Ms. Johnson suggested looking at other counties to see how their programs were handled.

Mr. Faulkner said when he was talking about the money aspect, he was pointing out the difference of the funds the City brought in.

He wasn’t saying the residential funds brought in by permits would not carry two inspectors.

Mr. Dultmeier said you couldn’t inspect a house for $500. He thought $5,000 was more realistic. The question was how to fund it.

There was some discussion by members on licensing and the costs. Ms. Johnson said she thought they were talking about too many

details for this stage of review.

Mr. McNorton said there were people building homes who were not licensed to do anything anywhere. They are acting as a business.

Mr. Campbell said enforcement was a problem and it didn’t matter if you were in the City or the County. He knew there was a

medical business that was connecting devices to domestic water in homes in the City illegally. Mr. Carlson said some were putting in

walk-in bathtubs with no permit.

Mr. Lyle said he inspected homes and found serious issues that were inspected and approved. He looked at houses inside and outside

the County and they all had problems. He made a living off of finding problems in houses and people calling him who had problems

and wanting to know how to fix them. He worked in litigation. It was his understanding that if someone lived outside the County but

were in the three mile area outside Topeka, when it came to a workman like standard (a standard held in litigation); they weren’t going

to be very kind. It better be built just like the houses in the City. He said contracting had to be affordable. Contractors were spread

thin and some of the people they hired didn’t exactly know what they were doing. Also they were spread so thin that they weren’t

always able to check their employees’ work. Sometimes work done by licensed contractors was done by a bunch of yahoos anyway.

He wasn’t insulting any particular company and was sure every company could point a finger at another company. He said

enforcement would be important. The inspectors would need to enforce the codes and hold builders to the standards and spend the

necessary time to complete an inspection. Also the revenue stream needed to be considered. If it wasn’t going to meet the revenue

stream, no one would be able to afford it. He said he looked at houses where if they would have spent another $5,000, they wouldn’t

have a $60,000 problem to fix. There was real value to having inspections and making sure the work was done properly. He thought

they needed to make it fiscally sound and needed to fine those people who didn’t get permits. Make the fees pretty high and teach

them a lesson which would generate revenue. He said what was going to make a house a better house was the quality of the inspection

and making sure it was done right. Also, it was his understanding that inspectors didn’t have any liability at all unless it was gross

negligence. They were protected from any liability at all and the homeowner was not protected. The inspections had to be of quality

then there would be good houses. The inspections would be paid for but they would be good quality inspections.

Mr. Beagle said he thought the consensus around the table was there was value associated with implementing and having a building

code. One reason was for public safety by going through the construction and inspection process there was a level of quality

assurance associated with the construction. There were numerous examples of situations that were created just because the home or

structure was not built properly in the first place.

Mr. Faulkner said that one point they had not talked about was the Certificate of Occupancy. Insurance was mentioned. He said if the

insurance companies knew there was a building code in an area and they got a Certificate of Occupancy, it would have a positive

effect on the insurance coverage.

Mr. Beagle said he had recently read some information on insurance. He asked if anyone could specifically address the insurance

aspect of the difference between a house built without a building code and a house that was built with a building code.

Mr. McNorton said he could address that to some degree. He said fire departments were all graded by the Insurance Services

Organization (ISO). They looked at proper fire prevention. They checked if there was an adopted building code and how it was

applied. Soldier Township didn’t have an adopted building code and neither did Shawnee County. The state had an adopted building

code. They couldn’t do it with residential and got dinged a little bit on their grading. How did it affect the homeowner? It affected

their insurance rating because the grading wasn’t as good as it needed to be or could be.

Mr. Watson said it went across the board and affected everyone in the County or in the township. He didn’t see a difference between

the insurability of his houses in the County compared to the City.

Mr. Weichert said he thought it was because insurance companies didn’t know that Shawnee County had no minimum building code.

He has thought for a long time that a Shawnee County building permit should have a huge disclaimer on it that said Shawnee County:

didn’t have a minimum building code and that should be an embarrassment to all citizens of Shawnee County and for leadership.

Mr. Beagle said he had responded a number of times to surety companies who wanted a letter verifying that a particular structure was

built in compliance. His letter had to state that we didn’t have a building code, an inspection wasn’t completed and there was no

building plan. He couldn’t qualify anything about the structure. The company wanted something in writing regarding the structure.

He could tell them the County issued a building permit which allowed it to be constructed. Beyond that, there was nothing to verify

its actual construction standards.

Mr. McNorton said they get the same phone calls because Mr. Beagle couldn’t give an answer. If it was a residence, he couldn’t touch

it. For commercial structures, he would issue a Certificate of Occupancy but he also inspected it.

Mr. Ramsey said if a homebuilder wanted to offer a home warranty and were in the City, it was easy. If it was in the County, they

would agree to do it but they had to get a structural engineer or engineering firm to inspect it before the insurance policy would be

issued. Mr. Campbell said if a buyer wanted to get a VA or FHA loan on new construction, they had to hire an engineer to complete

the inspections or they wouldn’t get the 210 or they wouldn’t be able to sell it.

Mr. Weichert said the closest the County had come to a building code was they passed a resolution quite a few years ago to require

hardwired smoke detectors in all newly constructed homes. It was still in effect. He asked if anyone had inspected one.

Mr. Campbell said if a person sold their house that didn’t have one; the person could be sued for having violated it. An easy lawsuit.

Mr. Ramsey said in absence of a code, they built to the closest prevailing code. Mr. Watson said from a lawyer’s point of view that

would be the standard in the area even though there wasn’t one. Topeka had one. The house better be built as close to Topeka

standards or you were going to get sued.

Mr. Weichert said there were plenty of builders/contractors who built new homes that wouldn’t work in the City. They only worked

in Shawnee County and they didn’t have licenses.

Mr. Ramsey said it affected the image of our community. He realized there was a cost associated with it. What were we showing the

outside world.

Ms. Johnson asked how many people knew there was no building code.

Mr. Weichert said he received calls from people asking about the inspections that were completed on their home. He would ask them

where their home was. If it was in the County, there were no inspections. The people were amazed. No one ever told them there

would be no inspections. If you spent $200,000 on a home, you would assume it was built correctly.

Mr. Dultmeier asked Mr. Beagle if there was a budget to fund the program. Mr. Beagle said he had not researched the cost of a

building code. He said he checked with Douglas County who had two licensed combination inspectors. He asked them what would

the cost be to set up a legitimate building code program. But was that the best way to do it. He didn’t know. If they implemented a

building code, what would the minimum be that it would take for a working verifiable efficient system that wouldn’t consume a lot of

resources and taxpayer money? It needed to be as efficient and self supporting as possible. He had some ideas. Mr. Dultmeier said

he thought it would be in the $5,000 area.

Ms. Johnson said if they decided to do this, they needed to have the teeth and fine people if they didn’t get the permits.

Mr. Beagle said in regard to their meetings he thought they would try to keep them to one hour. It was an excellent productive

discussion. He asked where they wanted to go next with their exploration. There was a variety of areas they could talk about with

regard to public safety, insurance, public surety associated with the structures. They were trying to lay a foundation to present to the

County Commission.

Mr. McNorton said they were hitting on some definite bullet points that they needed to define. They needed to find out how a

building code would impact Shawnee County and how it would affect the County as far as insurance credit. They also needed to look

at other communities similar to Shawnee County as far as what they were doing, the cost, what their permit fees were and how they

were structured.

Ms. Johnson suggested completing a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis at the next meeting on the whole

aspect of having a building code.

Mr. Campbell said he was most interested in pursuing this provided that at the end they were given some options. He said he

remembered working with Gary Brown. A grand program was put together and it got voted down. Time wasted.

Mr. Jacques said, hopefully, they would get some response back from the County Commission with an approval. At least they would

have their vote of confidence that they wanted something and then they could find out what it was.

Mr. Archer said they needed documentation that provided the advantages and the disadvantages, a reasonable estimate of the cost and

how it was going to be paid for.

Mr. Beagle said he had talked previously to the Douglas County staff. He could go back to them to get information on their programs.

Mr. Gales suggested checking with other cities and counties and similar growing emerging communities and if they had peer county

permitting processes.

Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Faulkner if he could provide a pie chart of the $1 million that was mentioned and what percentage amount was

brought in by homes.

Mr. Weichert said he would like to pursue something that Mr. Watson brought up about being obligated to a code. If Shawnee County

phased in the process, what date would be established for a minimum code? Inspections wouldn’t be performed yet. But builders

would be required to build to a code and if they didn’t, they would suffer some consequences. Two to three years later, the

inspections would be phased in. Mr. Watson mentioned how proactive buyers were. Mr. Dultmeier asked if you could adopt a

building code without enforcing it. Mr. Watson said yes.

Mr. Faulkner said if a code was adopted and it was intentionally not enforced, there would be a problem. If a code was adopted and

for some reason something was missed, there was a tort law that would cover the inspector. But they had to demonstrate they were

trying to enforce it. If you adopted a code and didn’t enforce it, there still might be a lawsuit. Mr. Watson said the builders faced

tremendously liability. Mr. Dultmeier asked Mr. Beagle for his opinion. Mr. Beagle said they were the experts. Everything he had

read questioned the point of adopting a code if there were no inspections to confirm the structure was actually built in accordance with

the code. Mr. Watson said a standard was being set to satisfy the people who were worried about having a standard in the community.

Mr. Beagle said they were trying to set a public expectation. Right now it was horrible in the County. There were no inspections at

all. He knew it didn’t make any difference whether they were building a home in the City or in the County. They used the same

materials and building practices; however, that was not true of everyone who was building in the County. They were trying to set a

public expectation that people knew when a house was built in the County; there was no difference between being in the County or in

the City. There was a building program designed to assure the homes were being built in accordance with minimum standards.

Mr. Ramsey asked how it was done in Wyandotte County. Mr. Beagle said he had not talked to anyone there.

Mr. Dultmeier said if they adopted a code and it was followed by the builders, they would avoid liability. If he could show he

followed the code and there was a failure, it was a big step in the right direction.

Ms. Johnson said, as an example, the Planning Commission knew someone was breaking the rules but there were no inspectors and

enforcement when special events were being held.

Mr. Carlson said in the City there were out-of-town contractors who were building apartments, nursing homes, etc. The rule was one

plumber, one apprentice and one helper. In the apartments, there were 20 helpers and one plumber. The inspector was told by the

powers of be at the City that he couldn’t inspect them and check licenses unless he was called to inspect. When he went to inspect,

there was one man on the job.

Mr. Beagle said as part of the process he wanted to build in time to solicit public input at the end of their process. Maybe bring in

insurance agents, other communities, etc. to round out their discussions.

Ms. Johnson suggested completing the SWOT analysis first. They needed to find out what they were missing.

Mr. Beagle said the he provided them with a copy of the document that was sent to the County Commission to possibly use as a

template. It included reasons to consider a building code and provided some bullet points as to why communities adopted a code:

public safety, public services, accessibility, insurance, etc. Maybe it would lend some structure to their discussions.

Mr. Lyle questioned what they needed to put together for the December 1 deadline.

Mr. Beagle said it was intended to be a high level review to provide arguments in favor or in opposition of a building code. It could

be that when they get done, everyone says to forget about the idea of a building code. The point is that they have looked at it from a

variety of different viewpoints on a building code. It would be summarized in a final report. They would review it and endorse it.

Then it would go to the County Commission by December 1. Hopefully, it would provide an argument one way or the other for them

to accept or reject the idea of proceeding with a building code. They would then decide how to proceed.

Mr. Gales said the Commission was just looking for them to come back with a clear concise reasoning for or against it and an outline

as to what the recommendations are.

Mr. Dultmeier said he like the idea of a SWOT analysis but he thought it would be important to put together something with how

many personnel would be needed and the cost.

Mr. Archer asked how many counties in Kansas had a code, what made them successful and the problems they had in implementing

that code.

Mr. Beagle asked for everyone to think about a meeting schedule. It was discussed and agreed to meet every two weeks starting

August 5 at 5:15 p.m.

4. Organization of Committee

The group nominated and approved Brian Jacques as Chairman and Scott Gales as Vice Chairman.

5. Expectations for Next Meeting

The expectations were discussed previously.

6. Adjournment

The group adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

of 6



Wednesday, August 5, 2015 – 5:15 p.m.

1. Call to Order

Brian Jacques, Chair, called the meeting to order at 5:21 p.m. and asked for roll call to be taken.

Members Present: Nancy Johnson, Brian Jacques, Robert Archer, Ivan Weichert, Richard Faulkner, R. Neil Carlson, Chuck Dultmeier,

John Lyle, Dave Watson, Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales

Members Absent: Karl McNorton, Harold Ramsey

Staff Present: Barry T. Beagle, Planning Director; Anna Ortega, Zoning/Floodplain Administrator; Joelee Charles, Administrative

Assistant

2. Approval of July 23, 2015, Committee Minutes

Mr. Jacques asked for approval of the July 23, 2015, meeting minutes. Ms. Johnson moved to approve the July 23, 2015, minutes,

seconded by Mr. Gales, and with a unanimous voice vote, the minutes were approved.

3. Discussion of Incidents Related to Absence of a Building Code

Mr. Jacques said they had discussed some incidents related to the absence of a building code but thought it would be important to have

some examples to present to the County Commission in their report.

Mr. Beagle said to include the cases where they had responded to construction that was completed that didn’t conform to any

minimum code. If a code had been in place, it wouldn’t have occurred.

Mr. Gales asked if the examples should be discussed or if they should be compiled and put in a summary. Mr. Jacques said they could

do it either way. If they were prepared to provide information, it could become part of the minutes or they could prepare a report.

Mr. Gales offered to ask the committee members for several examples and compile the information and provide to to the committee so

they could review it.

Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Beagle if he knew of any blatant examples. Mr. Beagle said his office didn’t receive phone calls from

property owners asking about problems. He said one example was the $1,000,000+ Bailey home on Southwest Urish Road. There

were problems with the construction of the home and whether it met a minimum standard. The home was torn down and Shawnee

County lost a lot of tax money. If there had been a building code, the issues could have been dealt with during construction.

Mr. Jacques said a good example was one of the last planning cases heard by the Planning Commission where the builder had built

into the setback. If it had been inspected, it would have been addressed. The homeowner wanted to fix it and there was no way to fix

it except for buying the neighbor’s property.

Mr. Weichert shared some photos with the committee. When he was the Zoning Administrator, there was a property on NW Valencia

Road where the neighbors who had built nice homes complained about a neighbor who lived in a school bus. Westar provided a

temporary electrical pole and the owner ran extension cords to the bus. He said by looking at the picture there were no standards

being met. Living in a school bus was not acceptable in any situation except in a camping area. It was a blatant disregard for any kind

of basic rules. She used a portable restroom and had no septic system. The neighbors asked him how this could happen. He told

them there was no building code and basically the owner was allowed to do whatever they wanted. The other picture he found in the

files at the Home Builders’ office. It showed a house under construction that wasn’t properly braced. It fell down after the first big

windstorm. He said there were probably more incidents like that but people didn’t know to call the Planning office.

Mr. Watson said they had talked at the last meeting about having public comment. He said he would be interested in hearing from the

public whether these types of issues were complaint driven. He didn’t deal with these problems since he didn’t do repair work.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if there were any protections within the three mile radius. Mr. Beagle said anything beyond the city limits was

exclusively Shawnee County’s responsibility.

Mr. Dultmeier asked about the regulations the County adopted in 1990. Mr. Beagle said the City exercised subdivision control within

the three mile area and any division of land was subject to their review and approval. The City recently adopted the Land Use Growth

Management Plan which set new standards and defined an urban growth area within the three mile area. There was now criteria that

of 6

applied to the urban growth area and the balance of the three mile area. It controlled the division of land and the utility requirements

that were associated with the improvement of those properties.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if it controlled the zoning. Mr. Beagle said the zoning did not change. Mr. Gales said it was more of a platting

oversight than any type of building construction or inspection of quality. It dealt more with utilities and intensity and cost of

infrastructure out to those sites.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if the land in that area was considered R-1. Mr. Beagle said it would retain its classification of RR-1 unless it

was requested to be changed to a different zoning district. He said the zoning had no particular construction requirements associated

with it but defined the dimensional requirements of the zoning district in setbacks, etc.

Mr. Dultmeier thought there was some protection for a subdivision if a commercial type industry was built next door and asked if they

had to go through the platting or zoning process. Mr. Beagle said there was a zoning process that covered that; however, from a land

use perspective, there was not a policy in place within the unincorporated area that defined what the future growth and development

objectives were. The County Commission needed to define the future objectives for unincorporated Shawnee County. At present

time, there were no policies in place.

Ms. Johnson said she had seen a television program about tiny houses. It was a whole new booming industry. Mr. Faulkner said if a

code was adopted there would be certain requirements on room sizes. They would have to consider them in the SWOT analysis.

They would need to take into consideration there may be unintended consequences of not allowing some things that the County may

want to have. He said they would end up in the counties where they didn’t have building codes. Mr. Gales said minimal was not a

bad thing. People wanted to live with the lowest overhead. As long as the structure met a code, it was a great thing. The committee

would want to make sure it was placed on an adequate sized lot. If the next owner decided to build a home, the lot would be big

enough. Mr. Beagle said there was no minimum housing code that indicated a minimum square footage to build a house.

Ms. Johnson asked how many acres the homeowner with the bus had. Mr. Weichert said the homeowner met the three acre

requirement. Ms. Ortega said the homeowner was now living in a shed on the property. There were more complaints so they had to

go through the legal department. The homeowner had to get a septic permit and building permit to convert the shed to a home.

4. SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) Analysis

Mr. Jacques said he hoped completing the exercise would result in some agenda items for upcoming meetings. At the last meeting,

they talked about insurance and what impact a building code would possibly have on it. Home warranties had also been mentioned.

He suggested inviting an insurance person to speak to them. He asked if Ed Peck might speak to them. Mr. Beagle said he had

invited a representative from Region 7 at the Insurance Services Organization (ISO). They would be looking at it from a rating

standpoint based upon the minimum construction standard of a home. The ISO completed the ratings for fire departments and floods.

Mr. Jacques said they had talked about some legal advantages that may come out of that. He asked Mr. Watson if he might provide

them with some insight into how a building code may provide some advantages or disadvantages to the community. He also

suggested having a public comment but they needed to get educated first before they could do that.

Mr. Beagle said they would not be defining a building code program but through the exercise coming up with details to answer if

Shawnee County should adopt a building code. They would need to provide the County Commission with the details showing the

advantages outweigh the disadvantages in order to move forward with a building code program. He thanked Ms. Johnson for

suggesting the SWOT analysis. He asked the members to provide their ideas in a short statement to place under each category. When

they completed that portion, then the group could discuss and agree on items and then prioritize them.

Mr. Jacques suggested Insurance to go under Opportunities as it might provide some reduced costs.

Mr. Gales suggested Safe Harbor to go under Strengths since it would provide that for a seller or a builder. There would be a known

minimum standard. When repairs on an existing home or a new home were completed, it would meet the basic standards. It put a

liability perspective on it.

Mr. Faulkner suggested Reduced Property Loss to go under Strengths. Most of the building codes were a result of some tragedy or

disaster.

Ms. Johnson suggested Continuity to go under Strengths as it would provide that across the board.

Mr. Carlson suggested Health and Safety to go under Strengths since it provide basic safety for the public.

Mr. Watson suggested Cost of Enforcement to go under Weaknesses. Mr. Jacques said it was an unknown. Mr. Watson said if there

was a code, it didn’t mean the contractor would follow it. He said the advantages of the continuity made sense to him. The health and

safety would require the enforcement.

of 6

Mr. Carlson suggested Uniform Enforcement to go under Weaknesses.

Mr. Gales requested to amend Mr. Watson’s comment to Cost of Enforcement-Direct and Indirect. Mr. Watson agreed. Mr. Gales

said there was a direct cost in having to pay for inspections and an indirect cost such as having to spend more money to take it to a

different level. Mr. Watson said there was a lot of cost. There was the direct cost of a permit and maintaining staff to complete the

tasks and the indirect would trickle down to the purchasers who may be paying more for their homes.

Mr. Jacques suggested Competitive to go under Threats. Mr. Campbell asked where it would go once a code was being enforced

making a home cost a little more. It would also make a home worth more so the taxes would be higher. He asked where the revenue

would come from to offset the cost.

Mr. Gales suggested Competitive to go under Strengths because there could be a positive increase in property values which meant a

potential broader tax base to work from. If it was standardized and done right, it could be a positive.

Mr. Lyle said there might be an issue regarding the appraisal process. There were homes in a location already built. If a new house

was built in the same area, it couldn’t be built for what the top property was valued at. The property values were established in

neighborhoods. New homes would cost more to build and would it be affordable to build and meet the value of a house. Ms. Johnson

said it could be both a threat and disadvantage. Mr. Jacques suggested Priced Out of Market to go under Threats.

Mr. Weichert asked for an explanation of competition or competitive and to define the threat. Mr. Dultmeier said we would have to be

competitive with the City which was going to be hard. Mr. Watson said he thought there were people building in the County because

it was a competitive advantage. If we brought the County parallel to the City, there might be more development in the City which

would have an adverse affect on building in the County. Mr. Carlson said there was a problem in the County with people building

houses that didn’t have any licensing or background. The suggestion of Loss of Bad Builder be put under Opportunities.

Ms. Johnson said if the code implemented was too strict, people would go somewhere else to build. In talking about competition, it

also meant losing housing too.

Mr. Jacques added Loss of Good Builders/Development under Threats.

Mr. Lyle suggested an optional building code. A home could be built to code and inspected or it could be built just as the rules allow

now and not get it inspected. Also it would allow those who built their home and had it inspected to have a marketing advantage over

those who didn’t. He assumed there were a lot of people in the County that live in the County because they chose to do so. They

didn’t want enforcement and to be able to do what they wanted. If there was an optional code, the passage of it might be easier

because it would take the opposition away. Mr. Beagle said it was probably a topic for the second stage.

Mr. Archer said a disadvantage and Weakness was going to be a Bureaucracy that would be established. If you were a builder, it

would extend the building schedule since he would have to wait and make sure he could get people out and schedule them and that

would be a disadvantage. It was probably going to take longer to get something accomplished.

Mr. Beagle said at the last meeting Mr. Ramsey said having a building code would make us more competitive from an economic

development perspective. Competitive with other Locations was suggested to go under Opportunities. Out of town interests were

looking at Shawnee County for quality of life factors such as building codes. Mr. Watson said he wanted to explore that and didn’t

know if there was any evidence to prove it. Mr. Watson said something had been mentioned about Mars. Mr. Beagle said Mars came

to town because the City extended their building code out into the County. Mr. Watson said it was suggested that Mars wasn’t going

to come to town because their executives couldn’t get a nice code house in the County. Mr. Archer said maybe that was why they

moved to Lawrence. Mr. Carlson said Douglas County had a code. Mr. Watson said there was no way to measure it. Mr. Beagle said

it would be true for all the items that were listed. Mr. Watson said they knew there was a direct cost. It had a direct bureaucracy.

Anyone who built in the City dealt with a bureaucracy. He said he would rather visit the County Planning Office to build a house

because it was simpler.

Mr. Jacques suggested Speed to go under Weaknesses. Mr. Weichert asked if fast and sloppy was an advantage. On one side it was

discussed as an advantage. We don’t have to wait for inspections. The cost of a permit for a $250,000 home in the County was $649

and the City permit cost $660. Mr. Watson said they knew the City subsidized its residential construction through commercial

building. Mr. Weichert asked what the County was doing for $649. Mr. Watson said employing three people.

Mr. Campbell suggested Working with the City to go under Opportunities.

Mr. Jacques said they had talked about Safe Harbor. He was thinking about it from a legal perspective. Mr. Watson said it set a

standard and during litigation the experts came in to testify to the standard. Without it, you basically had to establish what the

standard was and then prove the house wasn’t built to the standard.

of 6

Mr. Dultmeier said the codes helped him when there was a gray area. He talked about how they worked with the City’s inspection

process. He said it did slow them down but thought everyone liked the codes. He liked the liability factor that Mr. Gales had

mentioned. He was concerned though about the potential high cost of the County permits and if there would be a shortfall. He

wondered if they should work with the City. Another other option was to adopt a code and those that didn’t would have liability

issues with no inspections. He said he thought it was all about feasibility.

Mr. Jacques said they had talked about figures and possibly it being $4,000-$5,000 a home. He asked Mr. Beagle how many permits

were issued. Mr. Dultmeier said 126 in 2014.

Ms. Johnson asked how many inspections were needed. Mr. Weichert said they got one permit from the city and there were multiple

inspections that were part of the process. Mr. Faulkner said a home required four permits but there wasn’t a charge for the trades.

Mr. Carlson said he got 6 or 7 inspections total on his work. Mr. Dultmeier said they got 7 on building.

Ms. Johnson asked if they paid for the inspections. Mr. Carlson said the builder got the permit. It used to be that every trade was

billed and the builder was billed. Mr. Dultmeier said it was $500 to $600 and they also had to get their license. Mr. Carlson said the

license ran about $250 for him and $50 for his other workers.

Mr. Faulkner said commercial permits were more costly. In July, they issued five permits and the cost was over $1 million dollars.

Mr. Dultmeier said he thought the reason they had more inspections because the City was running out of things to inspect. They had

laid off some inspectors.

Mr. Gales said the State adopted the IBC 2009 code which was the statewide standard. Mr. Beagle said it didn’t apply to construction

of one to two family homes. Mr. Gales said there was an argument if there was liability because they were not enforcing that code.

As an architect, he couldn’t design and build a structure in the County and not meet a minimum code. He had an obligation as the

designer. Ms. Johnson said the advantage was they would be in compliance at least with the minimum of the State. Mr. Gales said

there was a perception of meeting a minimum standard. Ms. Johnson said if a builder was working with an architect, they would be in

compliance. Mr. Gales said an architect was not required to build a home or agricultural building in the County. By state law it

wasn’t required. There were some areas throughout the United States where an architect was required for everything.

Mr. Beagle said due to some questions brought up at the last meeting, he provided them copies of the State Fire Marshal Permanent

Administrative Regulations and the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. He said even though there was no building code, the individual

township fire districts reviewed code footprints for schools, churches, apartment buildings, etc. with the exception of one to two

family dwellings. Mr. Gales said state law required an architect’s seal to be placed on them.

Mr. Lyle said if Mr. Gales did a perfect job on his architectural prints that didn’t mean the building would reflect anything he put

down unless it was inspected. Mr. Beagle said that would be up to the township fire districts. Mr. Lyle said he had seen commercial

buildings where the architectural drawings, engineering drawings and permit were secured but then no one from that point forward

saw them. He has completed inspections where it was obvious that nothing was done according to specifications. He said in his

opinion there were two things you needed for a good building: good design and the building needed to be built per the design.

Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Lyle if the County adopted the state’s minimum code would it be acceptable for the houses he inspected.

Mr. Lyle said yes. He said anyone could design a one to two family home. There was no architectural engineering input. There

might be some design work but it wasn’t necessarily licensed. He said there could still be some things that would fall through. He

said it was good to have a minimum standard for a building.

Mr. Gales said they wanted to trust everyone who had a license and was building in the County. They needed some kind of means to

verify and set a standard. If it meant adopting a predetermined one or creating one, he thought there would be benefits. The question

was what would be good for Shawnee County and what would the opportunities be.

Mr. Carlson said in the City he chaired on the plumbing board and every six years they adopted a new code. The plumbing board

reviewed the new code and compared it to the old code and then amended it to their standards. There were some things in the

International Code they didn’t think applied to them. As long as it didn’t affect health and safety, they made some amendments. The

plumbing board probably spent 70-80 hours for each code review. All the boards did that.

Mr. Gales said as an example the City did not initially adopt the section on accessibility of commercial buildings that was in the IBC.

He indicated there was some flexibility in adopting a code to fit what they would need. In general, a majority of the code would be in

line with an industry wide expectation not only for people who own and buy a home but for people who were building and selling

products. He suggested National Model as Amended to go under Strengths. They wouldn’t necessarily have to create one from

scratch but could use an existing standard code. He suggested asking the City what red flags came up in their previous code adoptions

and see if they were the same challenges that could affect the County. Mr. Carlson said if they moved to adopt a code, they could

establish trade segments of the code. Mr. Dultmeier mentioned there was no occupancy permit. Mr. Faulkner said they had a form of

an occupancy permit which was a letter. They issued occupancy permits for commercial buildings not residential.

of 6

Mr. Jacques asked if there was a commercial code and a residential code. Mr. Gales said there was in IBC format. Since the City

would take the majority of the commercial project, he asked if it made any sense to spend a lot of time on a commercial code.

Mr. Gales suggested not spending a whole lot of energy on the commercial side if a code was adopted. They could look at what was

acceptable on the commercial side in the City and determine if that was something suitable for the County. In the future, it could be

modified as needed. Whether it was the City or the State, at least a basic standard would be established. Mr. Carlson said at one time

the City had a plumbing code for the commercial side and one for the residential side.

Mr. Lyle suggested Cost go under Threats. People who lived in the County were used to their property taxes being less. He lived in

the City and didn’t want to pay for the County’s building permits. He saw a potential fight. He thought the City should do it since it

made more financial sense. He questioned who was going to pay for the cost and where the money was going to come from. It was

going to be one of the biggest topics. He thought a lot of people would say they wanted their house built to a minimum standard but

once they found out what it was going to cost, it was going to be a serious issue.

Mr. Dultmeier asked Mr. Faulkner if he could sell it to the City staff. Mr. Faulkner said it boiled down to the intangibles. It couldn’t

quantitatively be explained when you told someone who wanted to build in the County that there wasn’t a code. Mr. Carlson said

when the City tried to enforce the three mile area, the builders adamantly opposed it. Mr. Weichert said it was because of the double

permitting.

Mr. Watson said there was some discussion about finding out what other counties do. Not all counties were the same.

Mr. Carlson said something was said about the taxes. He lived in the City and paid more taxes to the County than the City. Others

agreed. Mr. Archer said it was because property taxes were the only revenue the County had. He said the City had sales tax, franchise

fees, etc. He said the City got their share.

Mr. Jacques said he thought there were some good agenda items for the next few meetings. He thought they could discuss what other

counties were doing and maybe ask someone from another County to speak about their program. Also he suggested inviting someone

from the insurance field to come in and speak as well as having Mr. Watson speak about some of the legal issues. Since he was not a

builder, he thought they could get a better understanding of what the builders dealt with in the building process. He had heard stories

about builders sitting around waiting for inspectors for hours, other delays and additional expenses. Ms. Johnson requested a

Building 101 class so they could understand the complete building process. Mr. Jacques said that could be incorporated into a

discussion. He said if anyone had any items to add to the list for discussion to let him know. Also, they could ask the Appraiser’s

office if utilizing a building code would have any effect on the property values and would it change how things would be appraised.

Mr. Gales said the majority of the members were familiar with the building codes. He suggested bringing his copies so they could

look at them and see some of the standards. Ms. Johnson asked if there was a chart with the process outlined. Mr. Gales said there

was the IBC Residential Code and the IBC Commercial Code.

Ms. Johnson questioned how serious the process really was. She said she had told some people she was on the committee. She was

amazed because they said the builders were going to be furious. She responded that wasn’t the case. She said there was a

misconception in the community. She suggested evaluating each of the SWOT Analysis sections.

Mr. Jacques said he thought they needed to get some education and then go back and look at the SWOT Analysis.

Mr. Campbell agreed that they needed to go back through the SWOT Analysis and suggested tabling it. He thought they needed to

look at a few items. They had talked about finances and numbers and how many building permits were issued. There was discussion

about building and builders. He asked Mr. Faulkner if he could bring some information regarding trade and remodel permits so they

could bring those numbers into the analysis. He thought it would change their numbers. Mr. Faulkner said their residential numbers

were smaller. He said there was only one building permit for a single family home. Mr. Campbell said he was talking about projects

such as building a deck, adding a room, replacing the water heater or furnace. Those single trade jobs which also require a permit and

a fee. Mr. Faulkner agreed. It was revenue for the City with very minimal direct cost associated with it. Mr. Campbell said he was

concerned they were making decisions based on being concerned about cost without having all the information. There were also the

City’s self inspections and random inspections to be considered which had a very minimal direct cost compared to the permit.

Ms. Johnson asked what a self inspection was. Mr. Carlson said he filled out a form for the project he completed and mailed it in and

the City billed him for it. He said they were randomly inspected.

Mr. Carlson said he agreed with Mr. Campbell. He thought maybe they needed to establish that it was going to be feasible cost wise

or there was no sense in doing it.

of 6

Mr. Jacques said they have talked about everything from adopting a code which would be a big step to full-blown inspections with

codes.

Mr. Watson said they could analyze it in that light and questioned what the cost would be if they only adopted a code, what the cost

would be if they adopted a two person inspection team like Douglas County or the cost if they had an eleven person inspection team.

Mr. Campbell said it would be fine as long as you weren’t selling the concept based on there being a code with no inspections.

Ms. Johnson requested a breakdown of costs.

Mr. Beagle suggested inviting staff from Douglas County to share information on their program because they were a small program.

He thought Shawnee County’s program would be smaller. They could get an idea of what their costs were.

Ms. Johnson requested a diagram of the City’s building permit process. Mr. Faulkner said he could provide a brief overview.

Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Faulkner if he could attack it from a couple of different perspectives: building a new structure from the ground

up and including the permit fees, the inspection costs, etc.; and remodeling an existing structure. Mr. Gales suggested putting it

together so a layman could understand it.

Mr. Jacques said he thought the information would be very helpful if they were going to have public comment. They would need to

be able to provide information to the public.


Mr. Beagle asked about the agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Jacques said Mr. Faulkner would provide a hand out and review briefly

and then have the presentation by Douglas County.

Mr. Gales asked if the responses needed to be back by the next meeting. Mr. Jacques said if they were available that would be great.

Mr. Gales said he could provide a handout for everyone to review and they could talk about it later.

6. Adjournment


of 6



Wednesday, August 19, 2015 – 5:15 p.m.

1. Call to Order


2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ivan Weichert, Scott Gales, Karl McNorton, Chuck Dultmeier, Dave Watson, Richard Faulkner, Robert Archer,

Brian Jacques, John Lyle

Members Absent: Charlie Campbell, Harold Ramsey, Neil Carlson, Nancy Johnson


Assistant

Mr. Archer introduced Mr. Mike Pressgrove, PDQ Construction. He said he had contacted Mr. Pressgrove for a personal matter. During

their conversation, Mr. Pressgrove read him the right act about a building code in Shawnee County. So he invited him to attend the

meeting to provide his opinion.

3. Approval of August 5, 2015, Committee Minutes

Mr. Jacques asked for comments, revisions or approval of the August 5, 2015, meeting minutes. Mr. Archer moved to approve the

August 5, 2015, minutes, seconded by Mr. Watson, and with a unanimous voice vote, the minutes were approved.

4. Discussion of City of Topeka Inspection Process

Mr. Faulkner provided an outline of the inspection process from beginning to end based on Ms. Johnson’s request at the last meeting.

He said after the permit was issued, they completed inspections. Inspections were broken down into four areas: footings/foundation,

framing inspection, plumbing/mechanical/electrical rough, insulation inspection and then a final inspection. He said there might be

some additional inspections listed as well. It was straight out of the 2009 code.

Mr. Jacques asked if an inspection would be conducted if a home was remodeled. Mr. Faulkner said it depended on the extent of the

remodeling. An inspection would be done if it involved the structural integrity of a structure. He said there was no inspection for

re-roofing but they issued a permit to make sure the person doing the job was a licensed contractor. They did have the owner/occupy

permit that they issued to a citizen who lived in the home.

Mr. Faulkner shared a study he had just started comparing the City’s commercial permit fees with other communities. He thought

they might be interested in looking at it.

Mr. Dultmeier asked Mr. Faulkner if he thought there were approximately 10-15 trips by inspectors for a home. Mr. Faulkner agreed

but said it also might depend on the job.

5. Presentation of Miami County Building Code Program

Mr. Jacques introduced Mr. Mike Davis, Miami County Chief Building Inspector. Mr. Davis said he had been with Miami County for

almost 16 years and in code enforcement for over 30 years in various locations. When he arrived at Miami County, they had already

adopted a code in 1995. In Cass County, Missouri, he helped set up a program when they adopted a code in 1995. He has developed

a program from the beginning and also took one over in its very early stages. He said he has dealt with what the committee was

working through. He was strong on the code and felt very adamant that it was a good safety program as well as a public safety issue.

When he first started, there was a clause at the beginning of all the codes that said it was the minimum standard. He said there were

codes being developed today that didn’t work for Miami County or smaller counties. They were geared more toward bigger

cities/jurisdictions. He said the code should be reviewed carefully and amended if needed. He had seen a lot of the pitfalls in setting

up programs as he has helped other areas get programs started. Miami County’s program was relatively mature.

Mr. Davis said during the recession, they consolidated departments. People retired, left and some were laid off during that time. He

inherited the environmental health program which covered all the onsite wastewater systems. He said they had a consolidated

program and have tried to keep everything as a “one-stop shop”. When people apply for a permit, they have access to the building

inspection, environmental health and the planning sections. They also took the driveway entrance permit applications and sent them

of 6

out to the road/bridge department for their review/approval. They tried to keep it simple for the applicant. He wasn’t sure what the

committee was looking for so he thought it would be best to open it up for questions.

Mr. Beagle asked for information on their building code program, staffing, budget, etc. Mr. Davis said, before the recession, they

issued 80 to 100 house permits per year along with a number of ancillary permits on accessory buildings, electrical, plumbing,

mechanical, etc. Their major work was in the residential field. The permits dropped down to the low 20s in 2008-2009 but they have

worked their way back up. He said there would probably be 40 to 50 houses this year. They still haven’t got back to the pre recession

level. Part of that was based on some of the planning decisions that have been made with philosophies on allowing development of

small lots. They were debating on changing that.

Mr. Davis said at their peak they had two building inspectors, himself and one clerk. The building side had four staff members and

the number was similar on the environmental side. Currently there was one inspector and one environmental health inspector. He was

going to be hiring a new inspector and he wanted them to be multi disciplined so they could do any work that came up. They were all

relatively multi disciplined on the building side. They were certified to do all the electrical, plumbing, mechanical on the building

side. When they reached the 40 house level, he went to the County Commission and got approval for another position.

Mr. Pressgrove asked if that included garages, outbuildings, remodels, decks, etc. Mr. Davis said it did.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if the two inspectors could adequately cover the heating, plumbing, mechanical and structural. Mr. Davis said he

knew that some of them were contractors. He said if a contractor called in today they would come out tomorrow. If a contractor for a

concrete job called and told them what time they would be ready, his staff would guarantee to arrive within two hours of that time.

They did the best they could working in 550 square miles of unincorporated area which was mostly gravel road. In any one day, they

could come back in with over 200 miles on a vehicle.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if the two inspectors were able to cover 100 permits a year. Mr. Davis said they could. Sometimes they were

able to go the day after a call was received.

Mr. Dultmeier asked how much an inspection cost them per permit. Mr. Davis said with all the equipment and everything it cost

approximately $50 per man hour for the department’s operation. He said the fees they charged were adequate. There were a couple of

years through the recession when the fees did not cover the department’s costs.

Mr. Beagle asked if their budget was self sufficient. Mr. Davis said it wasn’t completely but the Commission was happy when they

added extra money to the General Fund. There were a lot of years that $50,000 to $100,000 extra was added.

Mr. Dultmeier asked what the cost was to inspect one house. Mr. Davis said it was hard to figure since they completed approximately

15 inspections on one house.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if they inspected the insulation. Mr. Davis said they did not since there were no energy codes adopted. Their

County Commission felt it was up to the homeowner if they wanted to insulate it. He thought that philosophy was going to change

soon since it was going to be mandated by the EPA.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if the $900 permit fee on a $100,000-$500,000 home was correct. Mr. Davis said an average permit fee was

$1,200-$1,800. The houses being built were larger houses and the average size was 2,600-2,700 square foot.

Mr. Beagle asked if the $1,200-$1,800 covered all the inspections. Mr. Davis said it included the entire building permit and planning

review fee. There were additional fees for environmental health and road entrance.

Mr. Davis said the smallest house that could be built was 950 square foot and they didn’t see that very often. The cost of land in

Miami County was expensive and didn’t bode well for smaller dwellings. For the cost of the land, the house was usually bigger and

on the north side they were close to Johnson County.

Mr. Gales asked what the typical turnaround time was for the plan reviews. Mr. Davis said their goal was 5 to 7 days and

approximately 85-90% met that goal. Once a building permit application was turned in, it went through the planning department, the

environmental health department and the building department. There were peak times also.

Mr. Beagle asked what the operating budget was. Mr. Davis said his staff consisted of himself, three inspectors and two clerical

positions. He thought the operating budget for 2016 was in the $200,000-$210,000 range.

Mr. Faulkner said Mr. Davis had indicated their revenue generally paid for their operations. He asked if there was a lot of commercial

construction. Mr. Davis said there was very little. He said the planning goal and the comprehensive plan for Miami County really

wanted the higher density residential and commercial going into one of the cities. As much as it was intense, they were trying to drive

it toward the city just to control the urban sprawl.

of 6

Mr. Davis said the zoning on the residential there was a minimum 20 acre requirement which was very restrictive. There were some

exceptions. You could get some agricultural preservation design and some conservation design where you could get smaller lots but

still at that 15-20 acre density. Their County Commission was looking to reduce it back to a 5 acre lot density. If it was approved, he

estimated probably over the next five years their numbers would probably jump back up to 100+. When they had the 3 acre lots on the

market from previous comprehensive plans and zoning regulations, they were at the 100 to 150 per year for residential level.

Mr. Pressgrove asked if they did 40 new houses last year. Mr. Davis said there were 43 to 44 houses in 2014.

Mr. Pressgrove asked if there was a surplus in their 2014 operating budget. Mr. Davis said there was. A few years during the

recession they were subsidized but that was an exception. When they were at 100+, they were putting in $50,000-$100,000 back into

the General Fund. Philosophically, it could be viewed that the planning department was generally never ever going to pay its own

way. It had to be subsidized by the General Fund. There were also development fees being charged as well as for contractor

licensing. $50,000-$60,000 had been generated this year for contractor licensing.

Mr. Watson asked how many licenses had been issued this year. Mr. Davis said 400-450. A license cost $200 and $50 of that was an

application fee. The annual renewal was $150. They required eight hours of continuing education in a code related field. Their

program was similar to Johnson County. If you were a mechanical, electrical, plumbing contractor, four hours education had to be in

your trade. You could get some electives and building code classes could be taken. Johnson County had a great program with other

areas using the same or something similar. They required contractors to have $1 million in general liability insurance and workers

compensation. A copy of the insurance was required in order to get a license. The licensing clerk ran queries every month and sent

out letters if the insurance was going to expire in the next month. If the contractor didn’t provide it, the license would be suspended.

If there were any active jobs, the contractor would be contacted and threatened with a stop work order until the license was submitted.

Mr. Watson asked what else it took to get a license. Mr. Davis said if you were a general contractor you had to have certification. It

could be ICC and/or Prometric. There were minimum requirements. The tests were hard but not impossible. Many contractors have

taken the tests to get their journeyman and masters licenses to become licensed in different cities.

Mr. Archer asked if they were charging each contractor $4,000-$5,000 to break even. Mr. Davis said they were handling other things

such as barns, etc. that generated revenue. Approximately 40% of the total revenue was generated from residential construction.

Mr. Archer thought that $2,000 per property was more accurate. Mr. Davis said the house sizes were different which was why the

average permit costs for houses varied from $1,200-$1,800 or a little more. Mr. Archer asked if it was fixed regardless of the size of

the house. Mr. Davis said he used a per square foot construction valuation chart published by the International Code Council. The

builder would have to declare the cost of the building on the permit application but the fee was calculated with the national square foot

construction cost. He utilized a spreadsheet that automatically calculated the permit fee when he put in the square footage amount.

For a 2,000 square foot house, the permit fees were basically the same and their time involved was about the same.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if they interacted with any other cities. Mr. Davis said they had reciprocal agreements with Spring Hill,

Louisburg and Fontana. Osawatomie accepted theirs but they also had to register and pay another fee. The only city that did not

accept their licenses was Paola. He has negotiated with them with no success.

Mr. Dultmeier said the fees they paid for permits ranged from $500 to $2,000. In order to fund a building code, he thought there

would be resistance from some of the builders. He was all for a code and code enforcement. Mr. Pressgrove said he thought it was a

good sales point to be able to offer to their customers that they were actually getting something for their money.

Mr. Davis said when homeowners came in and found out the cost, they were surprised. He would tell them they were paying the fee

to help pay for the operation of the department. They wouldn’t be subsidizing their operation in the following year when their home

was completed. Their department was providing them a service that was relatively valuable. Once a program was established, it

would help insurance rates and the risk out in the county.

Mr. Beagle asked if there still any concerns about their program. Mr. Davis said there was always going to be a percentage of

property owners who thought they should be able to do anything they wanted with their property. He said it was mostly an accepted

program. Most people welcomed it. There were contractors who refused to work in Miami County or other counties with codes.

They don’t want to compete with people that have to do it or they don’t have the skill level that was needed. It wasn’t It leveled the

playing field for the contractors. Everyone was on the same page. He said he liked the way it used to be when the code was the

minimum standard. There was a lot of things in the codes today that they amended out because they were products he thought should

be optional. They shouldn’t be part of the minimum that was necessary for life safety and sanitation. He thought they should be

asking what the minimum standard was for safety.

Mr. Watson asked if they allowed homeowners to build their own homes. Mr. Davis said they did. He said there was an exception in

the licensing code that said if someone owned and personally occupied a home they could complete any work they wanted to do. If it

was a rental house, a licensed contractor would need to perform the work.

of 6

Mr. Watson asked how their inspections compared between non licensed versus licensed work. Mr. Davis said homeowners took

more work. A lot of times, the homeowners thought the staff was going to be their project manager. He had to explain to them that

wasn’t the department’s focus. When they decide to build, they were taking on the responsibility and knowledge of being their own

contractor. His staff would give them limited help. There could be 500-600 open permits at any given time in various stages.

Mr. Watson asked if there were any re-inspection fees and how they controlled their time. Mr. Davis said they did have the ability to

charge a $50 re-inspection fee if someone abused the system. He tried to avoid that. He would hit contractors more for calling in an

inspection and not being ready. Politically it was good to be as flexible as you could with the homeowners. He said he would charge

a $50 re-inspection fee to a contractor if they were not present at a site when an inspection was scheduled or didn’t call to reschedule

an inspection.

Mr. Gales asked how they set their rates. Mr. Davis said there were three major code organizations when their code was adopted.

Miami County adopted the ICBO code which included a national fee schedule that was developed with a lot of different code officials

nationwide. They pretty much nailed it on what it cost to deliver the services. With the national per square foot valuation table, it

broke it down into residential and by the different occupancies for commercial, industrial and other uses. He said it was published in

February each year and he updated it. With the cost of inflation, the valuation has gone up but the table they adopted in 1995 was still

viable and covered the expenses.

Mr. Lyle asked how many rentals there were in Miami County. Mr. Davis said in the unincorporated areas there weren’t a lot. Most

of the rentals were in one of the cities.

Mr. Lyle asked what the reason was for requiring a licensed contractor to work on a rental house. Mr. Davis said it was because it was

putting someone else at risk. Rental property was a business just like a commercial building. They weren’t putting themselves or

their family at risk but someone else at risk.

Mr. Watson said there were two layers of protection for a person. There was a code with an inspection and a requirement the work

was completed by someone with certification. Mr. Davis agreed. He said that was common when codes and licensing were adopted.

He said a code could be adopted without licensing. Licensing could be adopted without a code. Realistically they completed each

other.

Mr. Beagle asked if there were many request for appeals. Mr. Davis said there wasn’t very many. There was a provision in the code

that his powers vested to him by the code did not grant him the ability to waive any provisions of the code. He worked with

contractors or designers because he was granted to the ability to grant modifications to the code if they could show him an equivalent

construction, material, practice, etc. He didn’t try to avoid appeals. A lot of times he would direct people to make the appeal. The

Court of Appeals has the same clause that he was restricted by. They can’t waive the code. The code was adopted by the governing

body. A law couldn’t be waived. Only the governing body could change the law or direct that waiver. It was a little different for a

zoning appeal in that the code could be modified but couldn’t waive the provisions. It was the minimum standard.

Mr. Jacques asked who sat on the appeals board. Mr. Davis said it was similar to what Shawnee County had. Their appeals board was

a nine personal panel established with a commercial general contractor, a residential contractor, mechanical/electrical/plumbing,

design professionals and a couple of residents. They were also the contractor/licensing board.

Mr. Lyle asked how old houses were handled that didn’t fit the code. Mr. Davis said they didn’t want to tear down houses. There had

to be some flexibility. If they saw something that was being modified that was inherently unsafe, they would get an engineer or

architect to look at it to see if there was something that could be done. If the house had been that way for 100 years and being

returned back to that exact state and not hurting anyone, they would let it go unless it was unsafe. Mr. Dultmeier said he read through

some of their materials and they really addressed that. Something new being added needed to be to code and whatever was there

didn’t necessarily need to change. Mr. Davis said they grandfathered as much as they could. It would change substantially if a load

was being added and a lot of other things to something like that. They took additional consideration and a closer look to make sure

what was currently there would be able to support it.

Mr. Faulkner asked when the board was set if they used the international code. Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Faulkner said there were some

guidelines in the back of the code that talked about how to set the board up and it sounded like they followed them. Mr. Davis said he

used it as a model. He didn’t use it completely. He said he thought it was included in the handouts that were provided to them on

their appeals board because it was part of their code. He went through each of the international codes and codes they have adopted.

He deleted Chapter 1 and wrote an administrative ordinance that basically went into their code for Miami County that acted as their

administrative chapter for all of the codes that were adopted. So they weren’t dealing with a different administrative chapter for each

individual code. It made it easier from his experience to administer.

Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Davis if he could provide a statement to emphasize the value of adopting a building code in Shawnee County

that could be passed on to the County Commission. Mr. Davis said he had no numbers or evidence to show statistics. However, he

of 6

could say realistically the quality of construction would be better, the number of fires that would result from the houses that would be

built from that point forward would be less and the loss would be less from a fire. One thing about rural counties was the fire was not

around the corner. Once a fire got started, it spread quickly. Generally in a rural area the fire station was further away and there likely

would be a total loss. ISO did evaluate building departments as well as fire departments. There was an ISO rating. However, there

was not an insurance company in Kansas in talking with all of his peers that would use an ISO rating on a building department to set

insurance rates like they do with fires. He has argued with ISO several times. His department had not been evaluated yet. At some

point when he was told that insurance companies had to use the rating they would get, he would subject their department to that

evaluation.

Mr. Weichert said he thought Mr. Davis gave an excellent presentation and appreciated the information.

Mr. Davis said the International Codes were changed every three years. They used the 2006 code. As he stated earlier, there were

some codes that were being developed that he thought were excessive and he told the ICC Board of Directors that. He sat on one of

the code making panels. He will be in Louisville next spring on one of the code making panels voting. He was active in the ICC and

believed in it pretty strongly.

Mr. Weichert said it was recently changed so code officials could vote electronically rather than make a trip to some specific location.

It was felt that some of the companies that sold certain kinds of equipment were dominating those meetings and some code officials

weren’t able to afford to go. Mr. Davis said he was lucky because his jurisdiction supported him in participating. He went to Fort

Lauderdale last year. He said out of 20+ years of being a code official, he has attended the ICC or the ICBO conferences at least

12-15 times. During the recession, he didn’t ask to attend. He said the Heart of America Chapter of ICC was the Kansas Chapter and

was a very close knit group. They offered assistance to attend training and annual business meetings, paid for registration fees and

offered scholarships to help cover other expenses. He liked the CDP Access which was the online process but there was nothing more

boring than sitting through a day of code hearings. During the debate while code was being developed, a lot could be learned. Also,

there was an opportunity to speak your opinion if something went beyond the minimum standard. If anyone had any questions later,

he said Mr. Beagle had his contact information.

The members thanked him for the presentation.


Mr. Jacques asked what to expect for the September 2, 2015, meeting. Mr. Beagle said Mr. Ed Peck and Mr. Rick Elliott, local

insurance agents, would be discussing the building code and its affect on insurance. The regional representative from the ICC would

also be discussing their services. Mr. Beagle encouraged everyone to review the Code Adoption Toolkit that had been sent by the ICC

representative.

Mr. Jacques suggested discussing some other meeting dates. Mr. Archer said JEDO and Go Topeka meetings were also on

Wednesday evenings and requested to meet on Thursdays. Mr. McNorton said the township board met on Thursdays. Mr. Archer

said he could review the minutes if he couldn’t attend. Mr. McNorton said he would work with Thursdays except he couldn’t miss the

township board meeting which would be held on the fourth or last Thursday of the month. Mr. Gales said he would be open to

occasionally moving the meeting up one hour. Mr. Beagle asked if that would that be a potential solution as opposed to switching

days. Everyone agreed. Mr. Jacques said they would need to make some adjustments to the two November dates since they would be

close to their deadline.

Mr. Pressgrove asked if he could make some comments. He said he had been in construction for many years even before the building

codes in Topeka were adopted. He said he had passed the ICC test. He served as the Topeka Home Builders Association Board

Chairman as well as the President of the Kansas Board. He has visited with representatives from around the state at meetings. They

were floored when he told them there was no building code in Shawnee County.

Mr. Pressgrove said when a building code was discussed in 2009, he was the Board Chairman. The City had offered to help with it.

When the City’s 2009 codes were adopted, he was on that committee and it was quite a process.

Mr. Pressgrove said he was predominantly a remodeler and had only built a couple of houses in the last dozen years. He said there

was decent money in remodeling and less headaches. He has worked on many houses in the County and the City. He was amazed at

what people did in their homes. He couldn’t imagine how someone couldn’t see the value in knowing that a project was checked to

make sure it was done right. A lot of people worked in the County for a reason. They didn’t have licenses, carry insurance or get

building permits.

Mr. Pressgrove said Mr. Davis’ presentation of the Miami County process didn’t seem like it was insurmountable in order to have

safety.

of 6

Mr. Pressgrove said there also would be people who wouldn’t want to compete. He paid a lot for insurance and overhead and couldn’t

compete with a guy who worked out of the back of his truck. But, where was that guy going to be when there was trouble in the

future. It didn’t make any sense from a homeowner’s standpoint.

Mr. Pressgrove said when a code was discussed in 2009, they got blocked. Someone told him then that they didn’t need government

in their lives in the County. He was surprised. He said he was good at selling products and sold quality. If a person could take and

sell that quality, how could you not sell that extra bit of money to have backup and someone else looking to see if it passed inspection.

He questioned how people would not want that. He thanked the members for allowing him to participate. Mr. Archer asked Mr.

Pressgrove if he would like to have future minutes emailed to him. Mr. Pressgrove agreed.

Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Pressgrove if there was anything else they should be looking at as part of their process. Mr. Pressgrove said he

worked with Mr. Ramsey and Mr. Wright in 2009 on creating a building code. They spoke with two of the County Commissioners

who at least listened to what they had to say. At that time, the City was prepared to take it on. If you thought about it, Topeka was in

the center. You could only go so far to get out of the County. Shawnee County was big but not that big. If there was someone

already set up to do the job and had to hire and extra person or two with an approximate cost of $100,000-$150,000 and money could

be generated by permits/licensing and make people safe and fees coming in to cover that, why would you not think about it. He was

tickled that the code was being discussed. He worked on it for months and never got close to what has happened with this group thus

far.

Mr. McNorton said he was the only fire guy present. He had seen things in residences and schools that were scary. He had to put his

guys into those homes when they were burning when everyone else was running out of them. He agreed with Mr. Davis’ previous

comments. When it came to fires in the unincorporated areas, it took time to get there. They were all volunteers for the most part. He

said the ISO didn’t talk to the building code department but they should. However, when they were completing his rating, they have

asked him if Shawnee County had a building code. He wasn’t sure how they have been getting by and getting credit. The state’s

minimum code didn’t apply to residences. He wasn’t going to tell them any different.

Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Gales if he was still collecting information from the members. Mr. Gales said members still had time to get

something to him by the next meeting.

7. Adjournment


of 7



Wednesday, September 2, 2015 – 5:15 p.m.

1. Call to Order


2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ivan Weichert, Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales, Harold Ramsey, Neil Carlson, Karl McNorton, Chuck Dultmeier,

Dave Watson, Robert Archer, Brian Jacques, Nancy Johnson, John Lyle

Members Absent: Richard Faulkner

Staff Present: Barry T. Beagle, Planning Director; Joelee Charles, Administrative Assistant

3. Approval of August 19, 2015, Committee Minutes

Mr. Jacques asked for comments, revisions or approval of the August 19, 2015, meeting minutes. Mr. McNorton moved to approve

the August 19, 2015, minutes, seconded by Mr. Gales, and with a unanimous voice vote, the minutes were approved.

Mr. Jacques said the September 30th

meeting was set for public comment. He said the meetings have been running around one hour

but anticipated that meeting would be longer.

4. Presentation Regarding Affect of Building Codes on Insurance Ratings

Mr. Jacques introduced Mr. Ed Peck and Mr. Rick Elliot and thanked them for speaking to the committee.

Mr. Elliot thanked the committee. He said Mr. Peck had been around for a number of years. He said he owned the Anderson Peck

Agency for about five years and had offices in Louisburg and Paola in Miami County. They have worked with building codes for a

long time in Miami County.

Mr. Elliot said an insurance policy included the guarantee to repair or replace the damaged portion with equal, like, kind and quality.

It was the damaged portion by an insured cause of loss. If a fire damaged one-half of a house and the other half was salvaged, the

insurance company’s obligation was to pay to repair the half that was damaged by the insured cause of loss which was the fire with an

equal, like, kind and quality. With a building code, if the property was damaged more than 50 percent not only would the wiring have

to be upgraded in the rebuilt part but the wiring would also have to be upgraded in the rest of the house. The upgrade to the portion

that caught on fire was called an upgrade to the damaged portion. The upgrade to the portion of the house that was not damaged was

called an upgrade to the undamaged portion and wouldn’t be covered unless there was building ordinance of law coverage included.

Most name brand homeowners’ policies included building ordinance of law but typically it wasn’t included in the farm/ranch and

commercial policies. If a farm operation in the county incurred a loss and building codes applied to it, unless building ordinance of

law coverage was included in the policy, it was probably not in their farm policy. If there was a business in the county, there was a

50-50 chance that their policy included it. If a building code was adopted, it would be important for the insurance agent population

and homeowners to be informed so they could review their insurance coverage to include building ordinance of law coverage. Most

quality homeowners’ policies were starting to include it. For farm and business policies it could cost an additional $250 to $2,500.

From his perspective, as far as building codes affecting the cost of insurance, it was probably a neutral exchange. When good quality

building codes were in place, property over time would become a better risk, the chance of a loss would ultimately go down and better

quality houses would be built. Any time the chance of loss went down the cost of insurance would go down. The flip side to that was

when building codes required things be repaired to a certain quality so the cost of the repair went up. They were forced to do things

because of the code that maybe they wouldn’t necessarily do. So, the repair cost would go up. Any time the repair cost went up, the

cost of the claim went up and could cause the cost of insurance to go up. There were pros and cons. Over time with a code, the

property would be a better quality risk but the cost to repair it when there was a loss in some cases would increase.

Mr. Weichert asked if the cost of replacement or repair went up if they had the rider. Mr. Elliott said if it was required for the whole

house to be rewired instead of just the damaged portion, the repair cost would go up and would only be covered if the ordinance of law

endorsement was included. If codes were in place, repairs would be required to be completed to the standard of the code. If the

insurance policy didn’t cover it, the owner would have an uninsured loss. They would still have to pay to upgrade to the code but their

insurance policy wouldn’t pay it so now the owner had a portion of the loss that wasn’t covered by their policy. There could be a gap.

The owner could be underinsured if there was a total loss and everything had to be replaced.

of 7

Mr. Beagle said if there was a pamphlet that discussed the ordinance of law coverage, the Planning Department would be happy to

have them available. Mr. Elliot said he didn’t think there was one but something could be created.

Mr. Gales said the discussion had emphasized residential property but he wanted to know if there was a difference between the

application to commercial versus residential property when a code was implemented. Mr. Elliot said it affected commercial property

more. A lot of commercial property was open to the public. If a business incurred a loss of 50-60 percent of their building and the

bathroom was not previously handicapped accessible, they would have to rebuild it to the code as a handicapped accessible restroom.

It would depend on the code adopted. Also some buildings by code were required to have a suppression system. Before the loss, the

business owner was grandfathered in. When a loss was incurred and in order to get a permit to rebuild, it would have to be built to

code which required a suppression system that would cost more. There were a lot of old buildings that haven’t had to comply with

those types of issues. But if they were damaged and wanted to rebuild, they would have to build it back to code.

Mr. Gales said clearly there was a difference between replacement and repairing. In repairing, you looked at the code a little different.

Safe harbor meant a certain percentage of it was replaced and upgraded in a damaged one. If you built new, you were building to the

current code from ground up.

Mr. Ramsey said if a building in the County was built with no codes and it burned down, it could be repaired back to its previous

existing condition. From a public safety standpoint, he thought it would be better if those buildings were brought up to some current

standard/code. There were a lot of restaurants, bars, etc. in the County that weren’t particularly handicapped accessible or otherwise.

Ms. Johnson asked if the codes included language that stated buildings had to be replaced or repaired with equal, like, kind and

quality. Mr. Elliot said he couldn’t answer that. Mr. Beagle said the next speaker might be able to.

Mr. Carlson said when he was on the state home builders’ board, the insurance rating service had looked at rating homes based on

how they were built. If they were built to code, they got a better rate. He didn’t know if that ever came into effect.

Mr. Elliot said they have worked here for 5-6 years and in Miami County for 30 years. He had never heard any discussion about

insurance rates in Shawnee County being higher for homes because of no building codes. He wasn’t going to say that somewhere

deep down in the actuarial process that they didn’t look at that but at their level it had never surfaced.

Mr. Ramsey asked if it was related more to fire and how close the fire department was and fire hydrant. He thought they were more

concerned with that.

Mr. McNorton said to some degree the ISO looked at the fire prevention aspect of any fire department. With residential, the ISO had

ratings that went from 1 to 10. 8 and below would have an effect on all commercial property. Once you hit 8, nothing changed for

residential. It stayed the same. If he had a 1 rating in his community, it would not affect residential, only commercial property.

Mr. Weichert asked for clarification. It sounded to him like it negated what was said earlier that the higher the risk without building

codes the more costly. But if insurance companies were not differentiating based on a location where there were inspections or a

location where there wasn’t. He questioned whether they were ignoring the possible risk of buildings not being built correctly.

Mr. Elliot said unless it was deep down in the actuarial process, he agreed.

Mr. Schmitz said under an ISO rating they completed a community rating which included fire and building codes on commercial and

residential. He said they had a great website that could walk you through their whole process of how they rated a community. They

looked at communities with codes, without codes, with fire departments and station locations, tankers, hydrants, etc. It was deep

down in the actuarial process. There wasn’t a chart in an insurance agent’s office to review to make that kind of determination.

Mr. Weichert said it appeared that they were ignoring the risk if insurance was being sold to an owner on one side and the other side

which was a higher risk at the same value.

Mr. Elliot said he was speaking from a sales agent’s perspective. The ratings were complicated with so many factors to consider. He

wasn’t saying the industry completely ignored it. He didn’t see it at his level. They have talked about it. If someone lived outside the

city and wasn’t within a 1,000 feet of a fire hydrant and over five miles from a fire department, they were rated a fire protection

class 10 and had to pay twice as much insurance premium as the guy who was in the protected town class of 8 or 7.

Mr. Archer commented he thought what was said was the risk was higher but the replacement cost was also higher. Sort of a wash.

Mr. Elliot said that was his opinion. Even if you took all of it into consideration and the rating makers, the risk would be improved by

having good quality building codes but the cost to repair would go up so at some point it was going to cross each other out.

of 7

Mr. Watson said Mr. Elliot was saying there would be some detrimental effect to the adoption of a code. If a code was adopted, it

would create the potential for non covered risks for owners that had to bring their homes up to code. If there was a loss, it could

potentially create a gap in coverage by the adoption of a code.

Mr. McNorton said it was an educational process. Owners should be reviewing it and know what coverage was needed for their

property.

Mr. Elliot said it was a due diligence process between an insurance agency, insurance agent and their customers to make sure they

reviewed their insurance and had the coverage they needed. If a code was adopted, information should be provided to the public about

how it might affect the insurance coverage for homeowners and business owners.

Mr. Watson said additional coverage would cost additional premiums to the owners of homes and businesses. Mr. Elliot said the cost

could be higher. Most of the high quality homeowners’ policies include the ordinance of law coverage. It would be the farms and

commercial where there was a reasonable chance that they didn’t have the ordinance of law coverage.

Mr. Peck said they had talked about the ISO and fire ratings. They just finished up that process with the Shawnee Heights Fire

District. He said the fire insurance rates for owners in the County were the same as if they lived right next door to a fire station in the

middle of Topeka. But it was extremely difficult to keep that kind of fire rating. ISO asked a lot of questions.

Mr. Elliot said a year ago he went to a public hearing in Miami County because the state was contemplating expanding Kansas

Highway 68 that ran through Miami County east to west. If it was expanded, it would create a new right of way. If an existing

building was in the new right of way and was damaged 50 percent or more, it could not be rebuilt. With an old right of way and a new

right of way, there would be quite a few buildings in them with some being commercial. So there was a similar conversation

regarding insurance coverage at that public hearing. If something was changed, the public would need to be informed so they could

check their insurance coverage.

Mr. Weichert said it wasn’t a building code issue but a planning and zoning issue when someone wasn’t allowed to build where they

used to be able to. Mr. Elliot said that was true. The public didn’t see the difference. He said he would provide his email to

Mr. Beagle if anyone had any additional questions.

Mr. Beagle said Shawnee County had multiple ISO ratings. In addition to fire insurance, there was a flood rating. Shawnee County

was a participating community in the Community Rating System under the National Flood Insurance Program. Shawnee County was

currently rated a Class 9. Flood insurance policyholders got a 5 percent premium reduction because of the extra efforts the Planning

Department completed above and beyond the administration of the floodplain regulations. Currently they were in their five year

update and he hoped to achieve a Class 8. Property owners would then get another 5 percent decrease in their flood insurance

premiums for a total of 10 percent. The maximum rating Shawnee County could achieve without a building code would be a Class 6.

Mr. Weichert asked Mr. Beagle if he was referring to unincorporated Shawnee County for the community rating. Mr. Beagle said the

City of Topeka didn’t participate in the Community Rating System. It was a lot of paperwork and they had been working on it since

January and were just finishing up. The reward was for those with flood insurance policies as a result of the effort. Mr. Archer said

that needed to be communicated. It was new to him. He never had heard about it before.

5. Presentation Regarding Public Benefits of a Building Code

Mr. Jacques introduced and thanked Mr. Tim Schmitz who was the Regional Manager for State and Government Relations of the

International Code Council.

Mr. Schmitz said the ICC developed codes nationwide. Some of their codes were used overseas as well. They had a whole process of

developing the codes that was used in all 50 states. The government used it. His community adopted them in 2006.

He said he lived in Batavia, a western suburb of Chicago, Illinois. He spent 8 or 9 years on his local planning commission, served on

the city council and was an on-call firefighter for 31 years. He knew all about ISO because they went through the process two years

ago and just received a reduced rating. It was a lot of paperwork but he looked at it as part of his job. They asked the community to

buy fire trucks and hire two new firefighters. They could at least provide the paperwork and staff to get the rating down so it helped

the community. He also served in the Illinois House of Representatives for 16 years. He did line development and home building for

15 years. He was hired at the ICC after a retirement in his region which covered Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri and Kansas.

He said Mr. Beagle invited him to talk to them about codes. He thought it was neat that the committee was looking at the process. He

didn’t think they were making a rash decision. It took time. He wasn’t there to sell them code books and tell them they needed to

adopt the codes tomorrow. It was their community. The ICC was a resource. The insurance companies were a resource. He’s

worked with code communities. He has also worked for big home builders who put up a 1,000 units a year. When the housing crisis

hit, it hit pretty hard.

of 7

Mr. Schmitz said a model code was a written set of regulations available for adoption by cities, counties, states. A building code was

a legal document. In his area, they were all code communities. The purpose of codes was to make sure you didn’t have one of those

events they had talked about. If a house was built to a code, they wanted to make sure you didn’t have a fire. They wanted to make

sure when a wind storm came through, the roof didn’t fly off or the windows were blown in. That was the whole purpose of a

minimum basic code was to go through all the research that has been done as a nation to find out what worked and what didn’t.

Building codes specified the minimum.

He said if something wasn’t built to code back in 2200 BC, you were killed. Unfortunately, codes have come about because of

disasters. Each time a disaster occurred something was learned so it didn’t happen again. He said the first codes were developed by

individual major communities.

He said they were the facilitator of the codes—the ICC. The codes were made up of all sorts of organizations from government,

private citizens, industry and manufacturers of the products used in the building industry. He said the different codes included the

International Building Code (IBC), International Residential Code (IRC) and the International Existing Building Code (IEBC). He

said our community would have to decide what fit.

When a code was adopted by a jurisdiction, there was a code official and the critical part was the field inspector. The code official

made sure the plans looked good and what was built matched. The onsite building inspector was key to the process.

Various states have adopted the codes. The purpose of the codes was to mitigate the hazards through proper design, construction and

code administration. A home was one of the largest investments a person would make and usually through a 30-year note.

Codes kept the construction costs down. When you have everyone doing the same thing, the uniformity costs come down because

everyone was building the same way. The insurance industry recognized that once an area was building to the same standards, if a

disaster occurred, they could assess what would be needed for the community. Building codes minimized the long term costs when a

disaster occurred. Life was first, property was second. We want to make sure the structures we were putting our families in were

adequate.

Codes provided consistent minimum standards in construction. Requirements ensured a practical balance between reasonable safety

and cost to protect life and property. Inspection during construction was the best way to verify code compliance.

Building codes and proper enforcement protected your investment. The standards referenced in the codes were based on sound

science, best practices and lessons learned from disasters. Adoption and enforcement of codes ensured durable buildings, protected

occupant safety and property investments. He said protection of the community’s tax base went back to when something happened in

a community. Some people didn’t come back and rebuild. He mentioned Hurricane Katrina as an example. He said a lot of people

didn’t go back so their tax base was depleted.

He said their national annual business meeting was next month in Long Beach which was called the Code Development Process

(CDP). He said it was a democratic voting process. The ideas came from all 50 states, were voted on and that was how the codes

were developed. He said there was an online process as well. The process didn’t happen quickly. With the CDP, there were a

number steps that were completed before a change was made.

Mr. Schmitz said that hurricane risk insured by the government had increased 15-fold since 1990 to $885 billion. Storm and

earthquake damage was expensive. We were not located in a hurricane region but there were severe storms. A building or home that

met the most current code would withstand the forces of nature better than homes built to older codes.

Mr. Gales asked if it meant that property owners weren’t insured or they didn’t meet the codes so the government had to step in and

provide some basic level of coverage similar to a flood zone. Mr. Schmitz said it was exactly like a flood zone. When there was a

Katrina event, not everyone was insured. The government said something had to be done so everyone had to pay with tax dollars to

help. They also put some restrictions on how to rebuild. Mr. Gales said with the adoption of a good code over time, the private sector

would eventually insure itself. Mr. Schmitz said if codes were adopted, it would be for new construction. It would take time.

Mr. Ramsey said a good analogy was cars and the difference between how cars were built in the past compared to today with new

technology.

Mr. Schmitz said that Hurricane Andrew caused more than $20 billion in insured damage. It would have been reduced by 50 percent

for residential and 40 percent for commercial properties if they had been built in accordance with Florida’s 2004 statewide building

code. It was significant dollars and the cost got spread around because the rates went up.

Mr. Schmitz said the ISO was mentioned. There were advantages to insurance. It was at the sub sub sub level in the actuaries. It was

like life insurance where you had two 48 year old males. There would be different rates for each because one might smoke and drink

heavily and the other one was physically fit.

of 7

Mr. Schmitz said unfortunately it had been seen over the years with fire, flooding, seismic and tornadoes. Then terror had to be added.

The new construction of high rises now dealt with terror. There was a lot learned from 9/11 and what happened to those structures.

So terror was added to the new codes.

Mr. Schmitz said everyone dealt with floods. They have learned a lot with vents. He said storm shelters were used in all areas and

there were codes on those. He said in 2009 automatic sprinkler systems were required where upholstered furniture or mattresses were

located. He said there was a Sealy mattress factory where he lived and there was a fire but it had a sprinkler system. It was hard to

find it because the steam was down to the floor. The sprinkler system did its job and reduced the damages to the building and they

were reopened quickly.

Mr. Schmitz said the code had changed a lot over the years and much has been learned. We have come a long way in how our schools

were built along with our malls. When we traveled with our families, we expected a level of safety. The lawyers sued if the safety

wasn’t there. When we go out into environments, safety was expected. Why wouldn’t we have it where we lived. That was the point

he was trying to bring home. We expected it everywhere except when we came home where we have our family.

He said the ICC was a resource, not a sales business. There were no commissions. The ICC was a pure resource. He said Topeka

used the codes. When he heard they weren’t participating in the ISO, he thought that was a shame. It helped the community and

reduced the insurance rates. He knew it was a lot of paperwork but it was what you did to help out.

Mr. Schmitz said our community was not alone. There were other areas that didn’t have codes. He said he lived in an area where

codes were predominant. He lived in a very regulated state. He thought it was good that the codes were being considered in a slow

steady process. He said if a code was adopted, not everything had to be included. You picked what was right for the community. He

said the codes came from lessons learned.

Mr. Gales asked if Mr. Schmitz had any data on the effectiveness of the code after it was implemented and what trends were seen over

a 5, 10, 20 year period.

Mr. Ramsey said if a code was adopted next January, they wouldn’t really see a return on the investment immediately. If they didn’t

adopt a code, they would never see a return.

Mr. Schmitz said he would look for some data on that. It was such a long process. When they talked about the easements on the

properties and what happened to those people. Once something happened, the new laws took effect. He said there was a fire at a large

factory and it was grandfathered from sprinklers. Every year when they did the inspection, the owner was so proud of being

grandfathered from adding sprinklers. It burned to the ground. The owner lost millions of dollars in business. He had just received a

large contract and now he was out of business. So grandfathering would hurt an owner. He said the codes weren’t put in place to hurt

owners. The codes were in place to make sure people didn’t get hurt and if you were in the industry your business would continue to

thrive.

Mr. Watson asked if there were any private service for code enforcement. Mr. Schmitz said the only private service he knew of was if

a community hired a good sized architecture engineering service to complete a public improvement inspection. He said he didn’t

know of any. Any location he has built in had code inspectors. He said he built in a couple of towns where the fire department was

the code department.

Mr. Carlson said Westridge Mall was inspected by a private company. Mr. Watson said it went to address the concern if people really

wanted it in their home. But why did it have to come from the government.

Mr. Lyle said they had clients who requested inspections of their homes being built. They also handled project management. They

did them in unregulated and regulated communities. The clients wanted to understand what was going on when their house was being

built. He encouraged clients to work with the City of Topeka. If anything was found that they were concerned with, it would be given

to the City. If you were outside the City, they would rely on contracts, attorneys and making sure you held your money back from the

contractor. There needed to be a good agreement between the owner and contractor. Their firm went in and looked at it and gave

advice. There was one attorney who told him they had established if the code wasn’t met in the County legally they would be in

trouble because it was close to the City who had workman like standards.

Mr. Dultmeier said he supported it if the homeowner contacted the engineer in advance and not after the fact. That was why he was in

favor of the code. After the fact, he was going to build according to code. He wanted to see code go into effect because of liability

and also to level the playing field.

Mr. Schmitz said it would protect the homeowner. In June, they had a hailstorm in his town. A week later, some fly-by-night roofers

came in. They were pulling permits left and right. The building department consisted of three full-time employees and one part-time

employee. Not a huge building department. When they started inspecting, something didn’t look right on one of the first roofs they

checked. They went into the attic and started counting nails. The roofers were only using one nail going across.

of 7

Mr. Dultmeier asked what the size of the staff was in Mr. Schmitz’s town. Mr. Schmitz said planning had 4 to 5 people and

3 full-time and 1 part-time for inspections. His community had expanded and grew out. When storms went through and if there

wasn’t enough professional staff, it was the homeowner who got hurt.

Mr. Beagle asked Mr. Schmitz to address contractor licensing and the value and advantages associated with that. Mr. Schmitz said

they found through contractor licensing even with a code process and work process, a standard was achieved. He wasn’t talking about

the quality of a trade. But if there was a standard of how the electricity was supposed to go and how the plumbing was supposed to go

and how the roof got installed and the vapor barrier got installed. You got a base standard. But the homeowner honestly had no clue.

When contractors were certified, they were all working off the same book. It didn’t matter what house they worked on or what

community. They were working out of the same book. It was how it was supposed to be done. The inspectors were the same way

and they were certified. Homeowners didn’t know what they were looking at. They only wrote a very large check.

Mr. Jacques thanked Mr. Schmitz for his time.

Expectations for Next Meeting

Mr. Jacques said the plan was to invite the building and development community to provide their comments on code adoption in two

weeks. The public would be invited for the next meeting two weeks later to provide comment. He cautioned that it may be a long

meeting. He suggested they consider having a smaller group of the committee to prepare the report. If someone was interested, they

needed to notify him.

Ms. Johnson asked if the report was to recommend or don’t recommend. Mr. Jacques said the report would hit both the highs and the

lows. Another potential threat that wasn’t on their SWOT analysis was the possible gap in coverage that was covered earlier in the

meeting.

Mr. Dultmeier said the report should speak to the validity and the feasibility. He wouldn’t recommend one without the other. He

requested to be included in the small group. He thought they owed it the builders and to the public to have a cost effective program.

He was concerned about the cost effectiveness. He said the builders were probably going to take a hit the first couple of permits. He

expected that and he expected to see them raise the price of permits into the $1,200 range. It would eventually be passed onto the

consumer but they would also get the benefit. He said the staffing of the program was important as well.

Ms. Johnson said it would cost from the County and the builder.

Mr. Gales asked Mr. Beagle if they could get the number of built structures in the County on an annual basis in addition to residential.

He wondered what the trend had been over the last decade. It might give them some kind of prognosis as far as the impact. It might

be a number of years before there was a really effective impact of an adopted code. Those who weren’t building something from the

ground up, their impact would be on a remodel. Everyone would need to be informed so they wouldn’t miss out on some insurability

because they weren’t to code. They would be grandfathered or would they get some benefit of insurability because they made an

improvement.

Ms. Johnson thought some data had been provided. Mr. Gales said it needed to include all structures. Mr. Beagle said it was basically

broken down into single family, two family, multi family, commercial. Mr. Gales said he must have missed it.

Mr. Beagle said they posted a monthly report of all the building permits that were issued. Mr. Gales said it didn’t include all the

structures in the County. He asked if there was a summary of total structures in the County. Mr. Beagle said they could utilize their

parcel database and probably generate some numbers to distinguish different structure types and the total number within the County.

Mr. Gales said he was curious. If there were 20,000 structures in the County that would fall within this oversight and they were only

building 200 a year, what would the impact be on those 20,000. It might be minimal or to replace them would take 40 years. He was

trying to get a grasp of their impact by something like this.

Mr. Weichert said he collected building permit data from Barry and from the City. He had a section on his website that had

information. He has tracked 2014 and 2015 and it was interesting to see the break between the City and the County. One of his

backgrounds was in geographic information systems. He knew it was possible if the data was in there correctly from the City and the

County to show dots on a map of when those structures came into being. You could do it on a time sequence. It also showed growth

in areas. He said there was a new staff person at the City who could help with getting the data. Mr. Beagle said he would see what he

could put together.

Ms. Johnson was interested in knowing about not only the cost of the department but how much did it cost to go back if there was a

complaint. They have seen programs dropped because they didn’t have the personnel to go back and enforce the rules in place.

Mr. Jacques said some of the information would come through during the next step when they figured the whole cost of the program.

of 7

Ms. Johnson said she was talking about feasibility. You need to have the continuation of it. They have seen what happened if there

wasn’t the follow through of a code being met.

Mr. Dultmeier said he wasn’t going to recommend based of the cost not being a factor. The feasibility, the staffing and which codes

selected needed to come into play before he would be willing to make a recommendation. Ms. Johnson said especially before they

took it to the County Commission.

Mr. Dultmeier asked if their current program was self sufficient and how it was currently funded. Mr. Beagle said they were General

Fund supported. Mr. Beagle said Mr. Davis from Miami County at the last meeting had indicated that generally they had been

averaging about 40-50 single family residential permits per year and that was the bulk of their construction. Their fee schedule

allowed them to be a totally self supported department. They returned money back to the General Fund at the end of the year and that

was without necessarily commercial or industrial construction. It would be the goal here as well. They also said they were

competitive in terms of their permit fees. Mr. Davis said what was important to stress to the constituents and the elected officials was

that the taxpayers were not funding the inspection of some other person’s home. The person who was constructing it was the person

paying the bill for that.

Mr. Ramsey said they were also generating revenue off of contractor licensing. Not just the building permits. Mr. Carlson said that

was a feasible thing for them to look at as well. Mr. Dultmeier said if the department was General Funded now, where did the permit

fee money go to and wouldn’t it support the department now. There were no inspectors. Mr. Beagle said it went back into the

General Fund. Mr. Dultmeier asked if an analysis had been done. Mr. Beagle said as far as tracking the dollars, they were averaging

as a department considering planning costs and permitting about $120,000-$125,000 annually in revenue. But it was not captured as

part of their operating budget. Mr. Dultmeier said the general public was not funding the permits or housing.

Mr. Beagle said if they got past the first stage, the basic premise of the development of the building code program in his opinion was

what was it going to take in order to make the program self sustaining. Mr. Dultmeier thought it needed to be included at this stage in

order to make a determination. Mr. Beagle said he thought it would be fair and maybe this was where part of the issue of cost since

they were not yet to the point of defining what the building code program was going to be. He thought it would be one thing to say

okay as a qualifier as an advantage to the program yes we are instituting a new program but it was the expectation that it would be a

self supporting program.

Mr. Dultmeier said they had talked about enforcement being an optional choice. If it couldn’t be self sustaining, well maybe they

weren’t going to be able to afford enforcement. He wanted to see a code and if it meant they had to have a code without enforcement,

he still wanted the code. Mr. Beagle asked what he meant by enforcement. Mr. Carlson said inspections. Mr. Beagle said it would

come down to defining what the building code would look like. His thought process was if they were talking about a comprehensive

building code program where it would include not only plans examination but it also included building inspectors to go out in the field

to make sure that the structure was being erected according to plan. Mr. Dultmeier said without an open checkbook probably what he

would be saying was he was definitely for a code. He self inspected. But if it meant a code without enforcement and have one or if

we can’t afford enforcement and not have a code period then he would recommend a code but sustainable on its own merits. He

thought it could be a two part recommendation.

Mr. Archer said the reality was their goal might be a self sustaining program but there would be start up costs to get things going.

That was the reality.

Mr. Beagle said he was going to work with Ivan to get a list of contractors for the next meeting but if anyone had any other specific

names to please provide them to him. He wanted to get as many people as they can.

Mr. Gales requested the members provide their examples to him by the next meeting.

Adjournment


of 7




1. Call to Order


Members Present: Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales, Karl McNorton, Chuck Dultmeier, Dave Watson, Richard Faulkner, Robert Archer,

Brian Jacques, Nancy Johnson, John Lyle

Members Absent: Ivan Weichert, Harold Ramsey, R. Neil Carlson


Assistant

2. Approval of September 2, 2015, Committee Minutes

Mr. Jacques asked for approval of the September 2, 2015, meeting minutes. Ms. Charles said she had provided the members a copy.

Mr. Beagle suggested foregoing approval until the members had a chance to read them and carry over approval to the next meeting.

Mr. Jacques agreed.

3. Continuation of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis

Mr. Jacques said they would be reviewing the SWOT Analysis from the August 5, 2015, meeting. Initially they had hoped to discuss

the Analysis after they met with the building community but before they met with the public but scheduling the meetings had been

more challenging. Mr. Beagle said the September 30 and October 14 meetings would be held at the Garfield Community Center

Shelter House. Mr. Jacques hoped for a good turnout to get some additional feedback from the building community and the general

public. He suggested drafting their report from the SWOT Analysis and suggested reviewing each section for any changes.

Mr. Campbell said he has hosted a Saturday morning one-hour radio show on AM 580 called “Around Your Kansas Home” for about

nine years. He had spoke to the radio station staff about the committee and getting public awareness for the public meeting. He

suggested three knowledgeable committee members share information on the show. He would have two shows and also cut some

promos about the shows prior to them airing. He wanted to do this before the public meeting so people were informed and could

attend the meeting.

Mr. Campbell asked what other advertising was being proposed for the public meeting. Mr. Beagle said he drafted a press release to

be issued in advance of the October 14 public meeting. He talked with a reporter at the Capital Journal and they would do a follow-up

story. Between the press release and working with the reporter, he hoped they could generate enough exposure and interest with

regard to the committee’s work.

Mr. Jacques asked if it was a call-in show. Mr. Campbell said they didn’t have to take calls and keep it completely informational.

They could share the history, provide information from the committee’s meetings and details for the public meeting. Ms. Johnson

suggested advertising the public meeting on the City’s Channel 4. Mr. Faulkner said he would check on that. Mr. Jacques wasn’t sure

they could fill an hour for the show. Mr. Campbell said they didn’t have to. Mr. Jacques said the announcements would be good and

suggested to work out the details with Barry.

Mr. Jacques suggested reviewing each section of the Analysis. Mr. Beagle said by reviewing the August 5th

minutes they could

identify the members who made suggestions and the categories. They could then provide their reasoning and then they could discuss

whether they wanted to keep it, move it or remove it.

Mr. Jacques suggested Gaps in Coverage be placed under Threats due to their meeting with the insurance people where they talked

about changes in standards and having to bring property up to code. Mr. Watson said it was caused by a Building Ordinance of Law

requirement.

Mr. Jacques said that under Opportunities he wasn’t sure that Insurance was supported enough to be included. They had hoped they

would identify some overall cost savings but that wasn’t the case.

Mr. Beagle said he had provided them a copy of a Wharton School of Business study that looked at the implications of communities

with an effective building code program and what it meant in terms of insurance loss claims filed and what the impact the building

code had on the number of loss claims that were filed. The study provides a good compact description of how the Insurance Services

of 7

Office (ISO) rates communities for insurance purposes using the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS). The ISO

looks at whether the community has a dedicated building department, the qualifications of the chief building official, qualifications of

staff, plan review capability and field inspections for each community with an adopted building code. Based on those items, the ISO

grades how effective the building code department is and how they employed their building code practices. The ISO then provides a

community rating. The Committee had heard about the deep down actuarial process that the local insurance agents weren’t involved

with. The BCEGS rating affected the actuarial rates that were applied by the individual community insurance agencies. It was a good

condensed explanation as to the BCEGS and how it affected a community’s rating for insurance purposes. It provided more

information than what the local insurance agent had who didn’t get involved with setting the actuarial tables. The ISO influenced the

setting of the actuarial tables at the corporate level for a community.

Mr. McNorton said he disagreed with what Mr. Peck had told them about his fire department and how it didn’t affect the ISO rating.

The building code did affect the fire insurance ratings. It was a two-fold improvement to an ISO rating for fire as well as insurance. It

also was based on what kind of code enforcement and fire prevention program the department had. His department did both.

Shawnee Heights didn’t.

Mr. Faulkner said he was confused by the suggestion of Gaps in Coverage under Threats. If there was a fire, it was a loss in

coverage whether there was a building code or not.

Mr. Campbell offered an example. A nine room house had fire damage in two rooms and the rest of the house only needed paint.

When the two rooms were opened up, knob and tube wiring was found and the electrical inspector said it all had to be redone. The

homeowner would have to notify the insurance company that all the wiring had to be replaced. It was indicated that most of the

policies that were written did not include that gap in coverage or Building Ordinance of Law coverage. Mr. Faulkner didn’t think that

was a good example. An electrician would not rewire a house with knob and tube wiring, whether there was a building code or not.

Mr. Campbell said there could be any number of issues with a code in place going back to a retrofit. They had talked a lot about new

buildings in their meetings and that was a great plan. He thought it would be helpful to break down the number of commercial

permits. They kept throwing a lot of the revenue at commercial that also covered the trade permits. There was a ton of trade permits

and many trade contractors going to six to ten homes per day making repairs in the county that may or may not be conforming to code

because they weren’t getting inspected. It would change the revenue numbers. The point that the insurance people made was to

provide public awareness if a code was adopted so the public was informed about having adequate coverage.

Mr. Beagle said if the code now required a higher standard than how a home was originally constructed, it created a gap. They were

going to lose that if the building code was adopted and the home would have to be restored based upon that higher standard from what

it was originally constructed to.

Mr. Campbell helped repair a home in the city caused by a fire on three of the exterior walls and most of the roof sections had to be

rebuilt. The inspector made them show the footing and it was substantial. Those same issues existed in the County. If there was an

8 x 24 footing that has been there for 100 years and had not moved, it wasn’t code. Mr. Watson said that would be a nightmare. Mr.

Campbell agreed. Mr. Faulkner said depending on the code that was adopted, allowances could be made for that and there was a code

that addressed existing structures.

Mr. Gales said the IBC’s existing building code allowed for all kinds of flexibility. Mr. Campbell said it all made sense but when you

got out on the real job sites, it had been a problem.

Mr. Gales thought it wasn’t solving a problem if they didn’t adopt something that was a standard or a higher standard. There were no

standards now and no means by which to say it wasn’t okay. It was the wild west right now. Mr. Campbell said it was a topic they

didn’t want to broach because they ended up in the weeds.

Mr. Gales said they would want to make sure this was addressed as part of the existing building code that covered these kinds of

conditions. Most were already considered. He had spent three days going over a fire renovation on an apartment building with less

than 50% damage. Parts of it had to be modified to be made accessible because it was 70 years old. Certain parts didn’t have to be

changed because the existing building code gave them that flexibility but there were also FHA requirements that still applied. Right

now there was no enforcement of FHA on a four-unit apartment complex out in the County. There was no building code official to

come by to say FHA said you need to do this. Most people didn’t know that. FHA was federal law. If there were four units or more,

it had to be met. No one was paying attention. He thought they needed to be careful that they weren’t getting IBC which covered new

construction and focused predominantly on commercial. With the Residential Code, IBC had its own book that dealt exclusively with

one and two family residences. Then there was the Existing Building Code which dealt with all existing structures that were

renovated, remodeled, added on to, etc. Mr. Campbell said that was why it was something not to get into the weeds on.

Mr. Gales said yes and no. It was better to know what was included and making sure the things they were concerned about weren’t

already addressed in some aspect or when it didn’t necessarily conform with some communities minimum expectations. The City

adopted everything but the accessibility section of the Code. There were some elements of it that they felt were already addressed.

of 7

He was a little anxious about the fact that they were lumping a lot of things together. There were parts of the Code that addressed a lot

of these in an acceptable manner. Assuming the standard was applied uniformly.

Mr. Watson asked if they ultimately agreed from a SWOT standpoint, was it a threat or a weakness if they adopted it. There were all

these problems. Mr. Gales asked for him to restate what he considered to be a threat and who the threat was to. Mr. Watson said it

was for those insured homeowners where it would create a potential gap in their coverage. Mr. Gales said he met with his policy

provider to make sure he had the appropriate coverage. Where was the responsibility of the homeowner to check their policy every

year to make sure there wasn’t something new. Mr. Watson said they agreed on that but the same argument could be made for

someone who wanted to build a house. Buyer beware. They had to hire someone to inspect it. They were talking about something

that was public policy and from a public standpoint.

Mr. Beagle said at the last meeting it was discussed as a potential opportunity because if a building code was adopted, information

about insurance coverage including Building Ordinance of Law would be provided. The public would be informed that if they had a

home that predated the adoption of the building code they would be advised to get extra coverage. If they suffered a loss, now the

insurance policy would pay for the difference between restoring the home as it was originally built and complying with the building

code. Their policy would pay for any increased costs associated with complying with the building code by having the Building

Ordinance of Law coverage. He asked if that was what it meant. Mr. Gales said he had his perspective on it.

Mr. Jacques said as putting it in the loss column, he thought there was a risk to the homeowner who believed they would be able to

rebuild their home to what it was before a loss based on their insurance policy whether there was a code or not. But if their property

was not up to code and they had to bring it up to code and didn’t have Building Ordinance of Law coverage, they could end up in a

situation where they couldn’t return to their home even to its present condition. That was his concern.

Mr. Watson said he had difficulty saying it was an opportunity by adopting a code. It had to be a loss because they were saying the

homeowner had to get this great coverage at an additional expense because a code was adopted. Mr. McNorton asked if it was both.

Mr. Watson said he was having trouble seeing it as an opportunity because the cost was being passed on to the user because a code

was adopted. If a code wasn’t adopted, there was no additional cost. They could make the decision to build the house back to some

standard or only that part which was being built.

Ms. Johnson asked if the burden of proof would be on the insurance people because they would have to tell them that they needed

different coverage because of the building code.

Mr. Jacques said it depended. The insurance people had said most mainstream insurance carriers probably already included it in a

residential policy. He questioned who wouldn’t. He assumed it was the economically challenged. The people who were

economically challenged were probably less informed.

Mr. Campbell said with rural property and acreage, insurance companies really sniffed at what you were insuring. The mainstream

ones were really iffy to insure when you had a lot of acreage. Mr. Jacques said the insurance people had said that about agriculture or

commercial property. He thought of it as a threat just from the standpoint of it being something that could cause problems to people

because of the committee’s action. Mr. Campbell said that was why he brought it up. He thought the building code was necessary but

was going to have a tough time with it in the Opportunities category.

Mr. Gales said if they had more statistics, it would help alleviate what anxiety the committee had. If it was found that 80 percent of all

properties in the County were covered by the Ordinance of Law coverage, it would be a non issue. And those that weren’t covered

were sheds and barns that traditionally weren’t covered by nature. It might be a non issue. Although it could appear to be an initial

concern, the question seemed to be was it truly a concern or perceived.

Mr. Gales said the first item brought up was Safe Harbor. He had made the suggestion and asked for it to be put under Strengths.

He felt many times people were challenged in what was the “burden of the building code”. The benefit and sense of Safe Harbor was

the homeowner would be compliant with the building code or exceeding it. Not just for the homeowner but for the developer, builder

or designer. It didn’t mean that something could go wrong but at least the homeowner now would meet an industry standard. So from

an insurability, resale ability or used as a rental property, there wasn’t an unknown issue. It did provide a peace of mind by meeting

the minimum standard, the Safe Harbor, and that was important. If not, the homeowner wouldn’t know until they started spending

money to find out otherwise.

Mr. Gales said they hadn’t talked about the minimum quality of building materials. Testing was completed on many of the materials

accepted by certain building types which were type 1 or type 2 construction. They needed to use non-combustible materials and those

types were listed with the details as to the minimum testing standards. Assuming that the building trades used all the adequate stuff,

there would be a sense of quality once completed. When something came up during an inspection, it was clearly an unqualified or

lower quality product. Many times they were at a threshold between the products/materials’ quality or the minimum test standards

that were associated with them. Mr. Beagle asked if it should be added under Strengths. Mr. Gales said he had reviewed the notes

of 7

and thought about some of the other things they should be looking at. It was that Standard of Quality Materials and setting the

threshold.

Mr. Jacques said they had Competitive listed as a Strength, a Threat and an Opportunity. They needed to clarify what was meant

in those three areas or maybe it shouldn’t apply to all three.

Mr. Watson perceived it as a Threat because it would cost the same to build in the County as it did in the City. He believed it cost

more to build in the City and he would probably focus more of his energy on building in the City and less in the County. He saw that

as a threat to the County as far as a revenue stream. The County would no longer be competitive. Contractors in the County had a

competitive advantage and it would be lost by bulking up the regulatory oversight for the contractors.

Mr. Beagle read from the August 5th

minutes: “Mr. Jacques suggested Competitive be placed under Threats. Mr. Campbell asked

where it would go once a code was being enforced making a home cost a little more. It would also make a home worth more so the

taxes would be higher. He asked where the revenue would come from to offset the cost.” That was the discussion from the August 5th

meeting. “Mr. Gales suggested Competitive be placed under Strengths because there could be a positive increase in property values

which meant a potential broader tax base to work from.” Mr. Beagle said maybe it was the same word and they were just debating as

to the placement and it got placed under both. It was open for discussion as to how the committee wanted to handle it.

Mr. Jacques suggested changing Competitive under Threats to Loss of Cost Advantage. Mr. Watson said that might have been

what he meant regarding cost. He might have been talking about the Loss of Good Builders/Development because it was under that

category as well.

Mr. Beagle read from the August 5th

minutes: “Mr. Jacques had suggested Loss of Good Builders/Developers under Threats.

Mr. Watson had indicated Cost of Enforcement as a Weakness.” Mr. Beagle said it was open for discussion as to what the group

wanted to do.

Mr. Watson asked what was said about Competitive With Other Locations under Opportunities. Mr. Beagle said at the first

meeting Mr. Ramsey had said when national companies were looking at Shawnee County they were looking at our quality of life

factors. Was there a building code? Was there plans in place providing for a planned future for the community, etc.? And, therefore,

the fact that we didn’t have a building code put us at a competitive disadvantage as to consideration by national interests. We’re not

as competitive with other locations in the country based on the absence of a building code.

Mr. Jacques thought maybe the terms needed to be changed. What they were really talking about was not as Competitive but they

meant different things. He thought when they talked about Strengths it had more to do with being on par with everybody else. If the

Mars people were looking at different communities to come into, they would be looking at a variety of things and if the community

was operating as a modern up-to-date community. Not having a building code was one of those things that would be looked at. Mr.

Dultmeier said we wouldn’t be on a level playing field.

Mr. Faulkner said it would provide incentive and opportunity. Instead of saying Competitive With Other Locations, it would

provide an incentive for future development and other businesses wanting to come here. They wanted to know what the community

had to offer. It could be called an advantage or an incentive. We had something that made them want to come here. It would change

the Competitive With Other Locations by changing the wording of it. Maybe Providing Advantages.

Ms. Johnson said she thought having a competitive downtown and having things to do and things like that were much more important

to people coming here than if the County had a building code.

Mr. Beagle suggested under Opportunities to put Competitive With Other Locations By National Interests. It meant how we

were looked at competitively by national firms for economic development purposes. Did it give us a competitive advantage over other

locations that didn’t have a program.

Mr. Gales said peer communities competitive with whoever they were competing with other peers in the marketplace for a company

or industry or whatever.

Mr. Jacques said maybe that language was appropriate as Competitive With Other Locations. Mr. Watson said he was having

trouble seeing it. If someone was looking at moving a company to a community and if having a code was important, then yes we were

not on par with other communities. But if it worked the other way and they didn’t want codes in the County for whatever reason.

Mr. Gales asked what Mr. Watson’s argument was for not having codes. Mr. Watson said the cost of building a new structure. If that

was important to someone they might say well we want to build this nice manufacturing facility but because you adopted the 2014

IBC that was going to cost them extra. They would have to build that facility and be in compliance with a code versus if there wasn’t

any codes.

of 7

Mr. Faulkner said the study mentioned earlier talked about the financial advantages of having codes and how having codes actually

reduced the cost of construction versus not having the codes. They came to the conclusion that having codes reduced the cost. Mr.

Watson referred to the story the ICC representative had told them about the mattress factory who didn’t have a fire suppression system

and it put him out of business. But he chose not to have a fire suppression system. Mr. Gales said the owner was grandfathered in.

Ms. Johnson said she thought the gentleman who talked about Mars was talking about his particular house. He said they asked him if

there was a building code and he told them no. They were extremely surprised about it.

Mr. Beagle said that was a comment Mr. Ramsey had made at one of their first meetings. It did make a difference in how national

interests looked at different communities for making investment decisions. Mr. Watson said Mars was here. Mr. Archer said in his

opinion that was way way down the list of economic development considerations.

Mr. Beagle said if it made a difference under Opportunities where it said Competitive With Other Locations For Economic

Development and qualify it that way. That was the point of that particular comment. Mr. Jacques asked if it should be removed as an

Opportunity. Mr. Watson said he didn’t understand what factual basis they were relying on to say that it made them competitive with

other locations for economic development.

Mr. Beagle said Mars came into Shawnee County with the understanding that the City of Topeka was going to inspect their building.

Mr. Watson said someone said that all the commercial development was taken by the City to bring into their tax base. Mr. Beagle said

they provided the utilities, etc. Whether it was the determining factor of employing a building code to the construction, he didn’t

know. He just remembered at the time they wanted to have an inspection program associated with the construction. Shawnee County

did not have a program so they were annexed and the services were extended to them for that project.

Mr. Jacques asked Mr. Beagle if he was saying that Mars felt like it was to their advantage in building the factory to have another set

of eyes to inspect it. Mr. Beagle said they wanted to have it inspected. Mr. Gales said they wanted to know if the minimum code was

met. Mr. Faulkner said he thought it went beyond them wanting it. They needed it. Mr. Gales said there was probably a national or

international insurance program. They wouldn’t have been able to consider it if they weren’t following the IBC. If it had been left up

to the County, they probably would have moved on to the next community. It was because the City stepped in and made an offer to

avoid the risk of losing them so they would be covered by a standard minimum building code. The point could be made that it was an

advantage to offer them a building code which allowed for them to meet whatever checklist criteria for all their other things including

insurability.

Mr. Jacques said to leave it in because it was a pretty good example. Mr. Gales said if one community finds another community has a

weakness, they would promote that because it was a competitive process.

Mr. Beagle said the table would be used to craft the report that would be forwarded to the County Commission. They would need to

continue to gather information as they moved forward in their discussion.

Mr. Jacques said one of the things they had talked a lot about through the process was the effect of the building code on what they

deemed either Bad Builders Or Good Builders and what impact the committee’s action would have on those builders who work in

the community. He thought maybe that was something to look at and questioned if they were in the right places and were they

identifying them because they were in at least two locations—Opportunities and Threats.

Ms. Johnson said when they referred to bad builders they were actually talking about the homeowner that decided to do the work

themselves and was inexperienced, unprofessional and not licensed.

Mr. Gales said maybe to phrase it as two types: inexperienced and substandard. Ms. Johnson said she didn’t like to use the word bad.

She thought it would get them into trouble. Mr. Beagle said there were Qualified Builders and asked if that was a proper term or

Certified, Licensed Builders. Mr. Gales said just because someone was certified didn’t mean the result was there was an

inexperienced. Those who complied, certified or not, would be the ones that continued.

Mr. Watson said the terminology was right because you see that in the subs in the trades as well. He said he had a friend who was a

builder who had a city license but chose to build in the County because he enjoyed the atmosphere and it was easier and less problems.

He thought his friend’s houses met code. His friend could build in the city but didn’t like the regulations. There was some

competitive advantage to the County because a house could be built for less money.

Mr. Jacques asked what term to use instead of bad builder. Mr. Gales said Inexperienced/Substandard. Whether there was a

licensing program or not or whether it was $5 or $500, it wouldn’t weed out the bad ones. It did allow them to track them a little

better and might provide more oversight.

Mr. Jacques asked if Code Enforcement, Uniform Enforcement, Cost of Enforcement made sense to be placed under Weaknesses.

Mr. Faulkner said he thought they did. Code Enforcement was when you were specifically talking about a specific issue.

of 7

Uniform Enforcement was where the code was applied equally and consistently over everyone. Ms. Johnson suggested changing

Uniform Enforcement to Consistent Enforcement. Mr. Jacques asked for an explanation of the Weakness in consistent

enforcement. Mr. Beagle asked how Consistent Enforcement was a Weakness. Mr. Gales said he wasn’t saying he supported the

statement but he could understand the perspective of what was the point of doing it and just spot enforcement if they didn’t go out and

do it right. They had to be careful that they didn’t go out and just catch the ones that they catch and only make some people comply

and others seem to get by. If there wasn’t a uniform oversight, it would defeat the whole point of doing it. It would be a perceived

minimum standard of a building code in place when in fact it wasn’t uniform. Mr. Beagle said Mr. Carlson came up with Uniform

Enforcement to go under Weaknesses. There was nothing further said in the minutes with regard to that suggestion. Mr. Carlson

was not present to offer an explanation. Mr. Gales said maybe the best way to state it would be the Weakness would be an

Inconsistent Enforcement. Some of the members agreed. Mr. Jacques said he wasn’t sure if the creation of the building code would

cause that. That was the application process. Mr. Gales said it might just be the partial adoption. If a code was adopted and not

enforced, they ran a risk. They were adding a lot of qualifiers. Mr. Watson asked if it was a benefit to adopt a code or a weakness to

adopt a code.

Mr. Campbell said there was a lot of discussion about the code because both he and Mr. Carlson had mentioned that they went to

Lawrence and Manhattan who worked under the IBC. In Topeka it was the UPC. The codes were different and different books. They

needed to identify where they were working so they knew which one to use. He thought there were some inconsistencies in that.

Ms. Johnson said she needed to leave but wanted to request there be a time limit for discussion at the public meetings. Mr. Jacques

said they would be using the three minute time limit. Ms. Johnson thanked him.

Mr. Jacques asked Mr. Beagle to remove Uniform Enforcement. He requested to change Loss of Good Builders/Development to

Loss of Qualified Builders/Development.

Mr. Lyle said they still had Competitive under Strengths and Threats and Competitive With Other Locations under

Opportunities. He thought they needed to define what Competitive meant. It was his understanding that they were going to use the

document to help them write the report. He could see it raising questions.

Mr. Gales said as far as a Strength maybe it should be redefined. Maybe Competitive wasn’t the word. What he was seeing was if

everything was done a minimum standard. As an example, everyone would have to install the smoke detectors or provide other

minimum things that were required where it was adopted into the code. And whether that was quality of materials or they adopt a

certain square footages for occupancy types or what have you all those kinds of things where a maximum square footages before you

have to change your building type from one hour to two hour to three hours to four hours. The competitiveness was that there

wouldn’t be people out there building things with only half of the requirements and other people building with the requirements and

claiming that they were equal for half the price. When the reality of it was since everyone would have to build to minimum quality

materials, minimum square footage, etc. That there starts to be a little more consistency in the competitiveness of the finished

product.

Mr. Campbell asked if that would be Building Uniformity. Mr. Gales said he didn’t want it to be uniformity. Mr. Beagle suggested

Consistent Enforcement of Standards. Mr. Gales suggested Standard Quality of Materials. Competitive would not be how to

describe it correctly. As he was reading what he had, he listed the Strength would be Positive Increase in Property Values that

comes from the better quality and therefore it created the potential broader tax base because it would raise the property values. It

would create some kind of standardization. Mr. Beagle suggested Increase in Property Values. Mr. Gales said maybe that was a

better way to describe it. It wouldn’t just be an increase in property values. It was the result of the increase in property values. He

said they couldn’t write down the whole paragraph as to why. That was probably the challenge in doing this because it was hard to

explain it in three words or less.

Mr. Lyle questioned the term. Property values were set by appraisers who looked at square footage, bathrooms, etc. They couldn’t

get an appraiser to look at whether a house had three layers of shingles that were 15 years old or one layer of brand new shingles or

whether 50 year shingles or 20 year shingles were used. They look at it as a functioning roof. He said, based on his experience,

appraisers didn’t increase the property value based on the condition of the property. He asked what they could change the term to as

far as a strength maybe an increase in property quality. Mr. Gales said the result was a long term view in increased property value.

Over time because of all that, there would be a higher property value if everything was built to a higher minimum standard. It was

always location or curb appeal. The true value wasn’t truly determined until someone had lived in a house for a year and figured out

everything that was wrong and then tried to sell the house and then would find out the real value. Was it less or more than what they

paid for it. It was never what you paid for it was the value of the home. He thought it was a long term view for increased property

values. If it was a strength, it was because over time he thought generally you would see an increase in property values in the County

because of setting minimum standards and having inspections.

Mr. Watson said he would put that under Standard Quality of Materials because he thought it was a byproduct of standardizing the

quality of materials. In looking at the Strengths listed, they made sense to him. Safe Harbor—he could talk about that. Reduced

of 7

Property Loss—Perfect strength of adopting a code. Health and Safety—Probably the same thing because there would be less

people dying because their houses weren’t going to burn down or if they did burn. Trying to explain it in three words wouldn’t back

up the facts. He could see what Mr. Beagle was saying and a report would need to be written at some point.

Mr. Beagle said they had fluid discussion with regard to adding, modifying or removing items. He assumed at some point they would

have to finalize it. He thought at a future meeting they would identify and finalize the SWOT Analysis with the committee deciding

what stayed, was modified or removed.

Mr. Lyle said he wanted to see the definitions of what each of the items meant. They were so short. It was obvious they could be

defined in different ways because they had the same words under different categories. He thought it was important to have some sort

of definition included.

Mr. Jacques said they could take the analysis and a group could put together an outline. He thought the minutes would be helpful in

the process of pulling out what was discussed and put that into a start of a document to review. Mr. Charles suggested to create a table

from the minutes. Mr. Jacques thought that would help. Mr. Campbell asked if they should prioritize each item under each category.

Every time he worked on a SWOT Analysis they started prioritizing under each one and maybe took the top three or four so there

wasn’t 17 in one column and 4 in another. Maybe if they prioritized them to get the most important ones, they could be more targeted

in their discussion.

Mr. Watson asked if they were going to have another meeting to discuss the analysis. Mr. Beagle said they would. The October 28th

meeting would be dedicated to try to finalize the SWOT Analysis. What they had already was like the executive summary. They

would need to provide the explanations for each suggestion. They would have to be in agreement as to the assignment of the

suggestions.

Mr. Archer agreed with Mr. Campbell. They needed to set priorities. He thought they had a good start. As far as Weaknesses, they

had Cost of Enforcement but they may want to add Unfunded Start-Up Costs if a program was implemented. Cost of

Enforcement sort of implied ongoing administration. There were going to be start up costs and no funding was identified at this

point.

Mr. Gales suggested Grandfathering under Weaknesses because in the future remodeling would have to be to code. There was so

much that was grandfathered that was not paid attention to. People moved on and forgot things and documents were lost. People

assumed things were to code when they weren’t.


Mr. Jacques said they reached their time limit and appreciated their discussion. The next meeting would be with the

builders/developers. He would provide a brief summary of how the committee was formed and what they have discussed.

Mr. Watson asked if the committee would have discussion on the comments made. Mr. Jacques said they would talk about them later.

They could ask questions of the people commenting but keeping it as minimal as possible made sense.

Mr. Lyle asked how long the meeting would last. Mr. Jacques said it would depend on the number attending. Mr. Beagle said they

would set up at 3:00. The start time was flexible so they would need to decide on a start time. Mr. Jacques suggested it start at 5:15.

Mr. Beagle suggested they review the excellent study completed by Wharton’s School of Business that looked at the effectiveness of

building codes as applied to hazard and mitigation. As far as concluding their work, they still needed to schedule two dates in

November taking into consideration the Veteran’s Day and Thanksgiving holidays.

Mr. Gales provided some building code trivia. Chicago was the only municipality in the United States that had its own building code.

All other municipalities had adopted some standardized building codes.

Mr. Jacques thanked everyone and would see everyone in two weeks.

5. Adjournment


of 6


Garfield Community Center Shelter House


1. Call to Order

Members Present: Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales, Chuck Dultmeier, Dave Watson, Richard Faulkner, Brian Jacques,

Nancy Johnson, John Lyle, Ivan Weichert, Harold Ramsey

Members Absent: Robert Archer, Karl McNorton, R. Neil Carlson

Staff Present: Barry T. Beagle, Planning Director; Anna Ortega, Zoning/Floodplain Administrator; Joelee Charles,

Administrative Assistant

Brian Jacques, Chair, called the public meeting to order at 5:16 p.m. He said the purpose of the committee was to

evaluate whether or not Shawnee County should have a building code adopted. The County Commission had made the

request to the Planning Department.

Mr. Jacques said the committee consisted of: Members from the building community, Members who were involved in

planning and zoning, a residential architect, a builder/attorney and Commissioner Archer.

To date, the committee had completed an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of whether a building code made sense

in Shawnee County. An official from Miami County who was a code inspector also spoke to them about the

advantages/disadvantages of their program. It was a small county and essentially operated with three or four staff people

and a couple of inspectors who did everything. Some local insurance people spoke to the committee and provided input

on what they believed the impact would be of having or not having a building code in Shawnee County. A representative

from the International Code Council (ICC) from Chicago spoke to the committee and provided some input.

Mr. Jacques said the committee wanted to hear from the builders and trades people and get their views on the building

code. The next meeting in two weeks on October 14th would be a public meeting to hear comments from the general

public.

The committee will then prepare a report to submit to the County Commissioners by December 1. The County

Commission would decide whether to go forward with a building code or not. If they approve the adoption of a building

code, it would be anticipated there would be a similar process to form the actual building code and they would have the

opportunity to comment on specific provisions.

Mr. Jacques said the committee had tried not to focus on what the code process would look like or how it would be

structured or what provisions of the code would be adopted. Only a general overview of whether adopting a code or not

would make sense.

Mr. Jacques opened the floor for people to make comments and requested those who wanted to speak to sign in and state

their name. He said if they were in the trades practice to state what they did. He said there would be no time limit since

there wasn’t many in attendance.

Mr. Kent Smith, General Contractor, 3716 SE Elm Cove, Berryton, Kansas 66409

The timing was not the best.

It was tough to compete with the cost of new homes vs. what the older homes were selling for in Shawnee County.

Anything that would add to the cost would be detrimental.

Built to code so his customers didn’t need to worry about that.

Built hundreds of homes in Shawnee County over 30 years.

Never had any complaints.

Most people liked the freedom that they had moving out to the County.

Didn’t have to put up with the red tape and extra time lag.

Was building a house in the city and spent one hour on the phone trying to get inspectors to show up and lost time.

Didn’t see what the monetary value would be for him or his customers.

of 6

Mr. Jacques asked Mr. Smith if he built homes in the city and if he exclusively built residential homes. Mr. Smith said he

had built commercial buildings in the city. Most was residential out in the County. People out in the County didn’t like

what the City had to offer and extra red tape was one.

Mr. Faulkner asked Mr. Smith to expand on his comments because he wasn’t clear on how adopting a code would

increase the cost of a home if Mr. Smith was already building to the code. Mr. Smith wasn’t sure what he was asking.

Mr. Faulkner said if the County adopted a code, it would increase the cost of the homes Mr. Smith built. Mr. Smith said

the only increase in cost would be paying the extra permit cost. Mr. Smith said a few years ago they had one year where

they had to build by City code in the three mile radius. He said it probably cost him $4,000 more per house. One of those

houses needed a 200 amp breaker system and the inspector told him it had to be 400 amp. He had asked the inspector

why. The inspector said maybe the next homeowner would want to put a pool in. Mr. Smith said he wasn’t building for

the next homeowner and was building for the current owner. The inspector didn’t care. Mr. Smith had to put in a

400 amp service for no reason. It was stuff like that which would add cost.

Mr. Jacques questioned when that occurred. Mr. Smith said it lasted one year and in the three mile radius they had to

build to City code. Ms. Ortega said it was in 2005. Mr. Smith said it cost $4,000 more per house. He said if he asked his

customers if they felt they got a value for it, he didn’t think it would be in the affirmative.

Mr. Gales said Mr. Smith had said he built homes to the code. Mr. Gales asked Mr. Smith if he used the City’s code or

the State of Kansas code. Mr. Smith said he built the same in the City as he did in the County. He assumed it would be

the City code. He hadn’t studied the state code. Mr. Gales asked Mr. Smith if he knew which code the State had adopted.

Mr. Smith said he didn’t. Mr. Gales asked if he was talking about the IBC residential code or just the standard IBC code.

Mr. Smith said the standard code. Mr. Gales asked Mr. Smith if he was aware that the City was getting ready to change

their code. Mr. Smith said he was.

Mr. Dultmeier said he built homes in the County like Mr. Smith and thought a code would level the playing field with

those that didn’t build to code. It would offer him protection. By building in the County it was fair game for anyone to

build however they wanted. If they built according to an established code, there would be some insurance that there

wouldn’t be any frivolous lawsuits. He was on the committee to watch the cost. After talking to the Miami County staff,

he thought permits would probably increase to $1,200. They would probably take a hit for the first few houses but

eventually they would pass it on to the consumer. He thought there would be a value for the consumer. From what he

heard, there were some issues with safety and some builders weren’t putting in fire alarms according to electrical code.

There were a lot of things going on out there. Maybe the homeowner that hired those contractors didn’t care for all those

things, but the next homeowner wouldn’t be aware of what wasn’t included in the house.

Mr. Smith said he wasn’t totally against it. He just thought the timing wasn’t good. On a $400,000 house, $4,000 might

not sound like that much but it was. He thought if the proposal had been discussed when things were busy, it would have

been easier and no one would have complained.

Mr. Dultmeier said when he first started working for his dad, they were selling 1,000 sq. ft. houses for $39,000. Now he

couldn’t do anything under $200,000. Their cost had gone up. He was there to be a watchdog. He didn’t want the

permits to get into California rates like $5,000 permits. He thought maybe it could be structured like Miami County.

They had two inspectors, two clericals and a head inspector who mostly reviewed plans. Miami County had a similar

amount of permits like Shawnee County had. They were looking at $1,200 permits. The City would probably go up on

theirs. He realized that but when the City started taking on licensed contractors and they had to be insured, he got busier.

A lot of people were eliminated that were back dooring them, not really building to code and didn’t have the right

insurance. He thought it paid off then. Hopefully it would pay off later for this too. He was looking at about a $700

increase.

Mr. Smith knew that was an argument. It wasn’t a bad one. Again, he said it was the timing. He wasn’t totally against it

but said if things were busier. He said he has lost jobs over $2,000.

Mr. Dultmeier agreed and said those builders were probably cutting corners. He said he respected Mr. Smith’s view. He

said it cost $30,000 for a foundation. He remembered when they were $7,000 not too many years ago.

of 6

Mr. Smith said once you start the ball rolling, things would be added. He wasn’t a big fan of the radon requirement. Stuff

like that. Other things would be added and before they knew it there was a big monster. The biggest problem he saw

currently was the finance side. He said Mr. Dultmeier probably knew what they built a new house for per square foot.

Every used house in Shawnee County was dirt cheap so they couldn’t compete. And the people who wanted to move to a

new home thought they got a good price on their old house and when they came to him, they were upset. They were

competing with the rest of the nation. It was hurting them. Anything that would be added was just another burden.

Mr. Dultmeier said their average home cost was $112,000 and that was the medium for the City/County. They couldn’t

build it for that.

Ms. Johnson wanted to understand how some approached those who weren’t reputable builders. In her opinion, it wasn’t

about the contractors that were there. They were all reputable. She was concerned about the ones that weren’t reputable

that were competing with them. They weren’t on a level playing field.

Mr. Smith said that was true but thought Shawnee County was just a little different than other places because of the

disparity between the new and used home price. He wasn’t trying to stand up for the cheap builder. If a guy wanted to

spend his hard earned money and build a piece of crap, that was on him. He was old fashioned. You got what you paid

for and lived with your own mistakes. He wasn’t there to burp anyone or pat them on the back when they made a mistake.

He understood what she was saying and agreed.

Ms. Johnson said as a consumer she didn’t know that. Mr. Smith said that could be but Topeka was not huge. If people

did their due diligence, talked to the home builders association, the subs and the lumber companies, they wouldn’t have to

talk to too many to find out who was reputable and who wasn’t. If the buyer didn’t want to do that, he was fine with them

making their own adult decision and letting them live with it even though he may lose the job to that guy.

Mr. Riley Rees, RDR Excavating, 2222 NW Huxman Road, Topeka, Kansas 66618

Remembered when backhoes were $7,000.

Thought the point of a code was to protect the public not protect the builders but maybe he was wrong.

Said Mr. Smith said let the people live with a bad home but a lot of people could talk a really good talk.

There were instances where builders put $50 worth of nails in the whole house.

Thought the code would be to protect the people that didn’t know anything about building a house.

Said he worked for a lot of people that were there.

Thought everyone in the room did a nice great job.

Asked if he was wrong and wasn’t that who they were protecting.

Said they were expensive but thought the people got what they paid for.

Knew some other people that didn’t do the right things.

Thought the code would make them compete evenly.

Built a new home in the County 17-18 years ago and used a reputable plumber. He asked the plumber if he was going

to test the gas line. The plumber said he didn’t have to and left. Nice guy and great plumber. When the propane guy

tested it, it had a little pin hole in an elbow. Not the plumber’s fault. But if it had been tested, they would have

known before the propane guy showed up. Little things like that.

Ms. Johnson said that was what she was questioning before. It was to protect the public. The contractors had insurance to

protect them. The public had nothing to protect them. She agreed that talk was cheap. She could go to any builder and

not know them and they would sell her a bill of goods. She was for the code to protect the public as consumers.

Mr. Watson asked Mr. Rees if he thought there were other ways to protect the public or did he believe the government

was the only way to protect the public. Mr. Rees said he didn’t think the government was the greatest to do anything.

Mr. Watson said that was what they were talking about. It was the government adopting a code to offer protection to the

people. Mr. Rees said if a code was adopted, it would be rough and take some fine tuning. He didn’t believe it was up to

the government to protect anybody and didn’t think they could protect themselves. He thought if there was an inspection

process in the County like there was in the City. Some day Topeka was going to be the whole County whether it was

liked or not. The government couldn’t protect everyone. When the public wanted something built, they needed to do

their homework and check the references of the contractors who worked in the community, but they didn’t. In order to

make it fair for everyone and to protect John Q. Public who didn’t know anything about building a house, he thought there

should be a code.

of 6


Agreed with Mr. Rees to a point.

Had been to Kansas City to look at their $400,000-$500,000 houses and wouldn’t want any of them because they

were junk and they had inspectors out the kazoo.

Inspections didn’t mean quality, period.

Helped a friend replace a post that got knocked off and they used sheet rock for their soffit outside and met code.

Didn’t think his customers would like sheet rock for their exterior soffits.

His customers paid him to do a job and hoped they thought it was well worth it.

That was why they paid him to make sure the house was built correctly.

Thought the public was led to believe that if there were codes they were getting a quality house and they weren’t.

Said what happened to Mr. Rees could happen even if it was inspected. It could happen after the inspector left.

People should go to builders’ customers. Got to a couple of them.

Didn’t like government doing anything for him either. That was what they were asking to happen.

More government regulations.

Said most were adults and at some point people needed to live with their decisions.

Mr. Lyle said he agreed with Mr. Smith. He did a lot of work in litigation. He was called to Kansas City to look at a

house that had passed inspection. He called the inspectors to ask how it passed because there were dozens of code

violations. They apologized and said they couldn’t’ help him. It had passed their inspection. He dealt with a lot of

people in Kansas City that really got taken big time. Also it wasn’t just the first person who got taken. Some people were

heinous enough to lie on their disclosure and leave their problem to the next person. A couple had bought a $450,000

house. It rained inside the house and outside the house at the same time. Mold grew everywhere and they couldn’t get

out of it because they didn’t have the money so they were stuck with it. They either had to default on their loan or decide

on their children’s health.


Said Lawrence was the same and he couldn’t’ tell the difference between Kansas City and Lawrence.

Wouldn’t own any of those houses either and they all passed code and people bought them.

They were super strict and a lot tougher than Topeka.

Real tough county code.

The public was led to believe that because there were inspectors they were getting a quality home.

Furthest thing from the truth.

Came right down to due diligence by the customer.

Mr. Weichert asked Mr. Smith if he built to code and if he had a copy of the current codes. Mr. Smith said he built to

code but didn’t have a copy of the codes at his house but all his subs had them. Mr. Weichert asked if he hired licensed

electricians, plumbers and HVAC. Mr. Smith said he did. Mr. Weichert asked if they got inspected. Mr. Smith said not

in the County.

Mr. Weichert said there was a big difference between quality and minimum building standards for safety. He agreed with

Mr. Rees. He was there because of the safety factor. He questioned whether a builder who didn’t have a copy of the code

and didn’t know which codes were in effect and hadn’t been inspected could say they would pass every inspection. He

questioned whether something couldn’t be missed because there were so many new things that came out all the time.

Mr. Smith said that was true. New stuff came out all the time.

Mr. Weichert said in order to protect the public, they would want to make sure that the minimum building code was met.

They weren’t talking about the highest standard available. If they didn’t want to do that, shame on them. Everyone

needed to meet the minimum standard no matter how good they were. He was glad to hear that Mr. Smith hired licensed

subs since there were no inspections. Mr. Smith said there were no inspections in the County and had been building for

30 years. Mr. Weichert said he understood. Mr. Smith said when he compared houses, he knew from experience what

was right and what was wrong. Eventually you would hope after doing it a few times, a builder would know what they

were doing whether there was a code or not.

of 6

Mr. Mike Tindell, Commercial Building Contractor, Box 118, Auburn, Kansas 66402

Worked in Kansas and some in Missouri including Johnson County, around Lawrence and other areas.

Got all his licensing in Johnson County.

Surprised that Shawnee County didn’t have at least some minimal standards for building.

Built a church outside the city limits with no inspections and thought that was interesting at the time.

Has done a little residential work but mainly a commercial contractor.

Familiar with codes including IRC, the 2012 IRC and the new standards being adopted.

In Johnson County, they were starting to adopt energy standards and should have the same in Shawnee County.

The minimum standards on homes were important.

Didn’t mean the roof wasn’t going to leak because you had a bad roofing contractor.

That was where you got into lawsuits was over water.

Codes didn’t address most of that.

It was quality workmanship.

Helped on Danny Bailey’s house a few years ago that ended up being torn down.

If there had been some minimum standards and inspections, the house might still be standing today.

Major multiple mistakes made in the framing, the concrete and the steel because no one to inspect.

The plans weren’t worth anything.

Was deposed on that job after they worked there for awhile.

One major example of where a building code might have been beneficial to the owner who was fairly clueless about

the building process.

Was in favor of at least starting with all the small commercial projects in the County and then phase the residential in.

Bring in the energy codes and some minimum standards into both commercial and residential.

Mr. Dultmeier said he was on the City’s committee that adopted the 2009 IRC. If the County adopted a code, he wanted it

to be similar to the City because it would help everyone in their industry. Adjustments that worked for Topeka could be

used by Shawnee County. It was simple things like the fire sprinkler systems were not required as they were in the 2009

IRC. They lightened up on the insulation codes because to insulate those bare cement walls to a R12 without any

studding or anything before the basement was finished was pretty hard to do. The City agreed the builders would need to

insulate if they finished the basement or finished it later. Mr. Tindell said once they got their final committee, they could

adopt all or part of the code. If something didn’t work for Shawnee County, they didn’t have to enforce a certain

provision. Mr. Dultmeier said there were some very feasible issues with the insulation. There were a lot of real feasible

issues out there that they were doing. It was a good point to adopt a code. It would be pretty raw on everyone.

Mr. Tindell asked if the City was getting ready to move up to the 2012. Mr. Dultmeier said they were.

Mr. Gales asked Mr. Tindell what the biggest difference he saw between an area that had adopted a code, enforced or not,

and an area that had no code. He had mentioned energy codes which were kind of unique and probably hadn’t been

utilized around here. Mr. Tindell said most of the energy standards. They were building tighter frames and using air

changes which were resulting in healthier air inside the homes. It wasn’t costing a lot of energy with the continuous air

changes in residential. Johnson County adopted them. He said you still needed quality builders and there were a lot in

Shawnee County. It wouldn’t take them long to get up to speed on those sorts of things.

Mr. Gales asked Mr. Tindell if he saw the code as an opportunity for the homeowner to have a measuring stick that said

something was up to code. Without a code a builder could say they did quality work through a visual inspection but there

was also a standard. Mr. Tindell said that most homeowners were going to be fairly clueless. If everyone knew that

builders were building to a certain standard, it would help a lot. Mr. Tindell said that Mr. Smith said he had 30 years of

experience but how about the builder who only had 2 years of experience. Did that mean he couldn’t do anything for

10 years. Mr. Gales said that might be the guy to inspect more frequently than someone that had 30 years and 100 happy

clients.

Mr. Tindell said special inspections had become part of the code for commercial. It wasn’t just the city inspector

inspecting rebar. There had to be another professional rebar inspector from a structural engineering firm who was also

paid. These were additional costs but you were also getting real thorough inspections for steel and rebar. Mr. Gales said

that tended to be commercial. Mr. Tindell agreed but it was also starting to drift into the IRC. They would be seeing

more and more special inspections in mechanical, electrical and foundations.

of 6


Probably sounded like he was backtracking.

Didn’t want them to think he was against codes.

Timing didn’t help.

Would codes help his business and keep out the riff raff. He hoped so.

He hoped whatever was decided was geared for Shawnee County’s needs.

For his customers, it came down to how much money could be put into a home for the most value.

Was trying to build his customers the most efficient homes for their dollars which was tough.

Some codes made it just that much tougher.

Some codes were geared to Atlanta where it rained all the time.

Didn’t want people getting a false sense of security.

His niece was trying to sell her home in Gardner. Whoever inspected it when she bought it new did a horrendous job.

There were nail holes that she didn’t know about and the roof had been leaking inside over the years. She had mold in

her attic. It was inexcusable. Her neighbor had the same problem. They probably whipped through that subdivision

in about a day and a half and knocked out 30 houses.

He didn’t want to see that happen.

Mr. Ray Carrick, Electrician, Topeka, Kansas

Thought a sub should comment.

Thought the timing was probably way over due to have inspections in the County.

Worked in Kansas City to Junction City.

Kansas City had all kinds of codes but it depended on the inspector also.

He saw some of them just fly through and not inspect.

In Kansas City, they had one head inspector in the office and they hired others to do the inspections.

Some were really good and some were bad.

Thought Topeka had a good set of inspectors.

Didn’t know if the County was going to have their own inspectors or use City inspectors.

He thought it all should be under one code so they would be the same.

Douglas County was not set up that way and it was confusing.

Good to have it all under one roof.

Mr. Faulkner said all of the City inspectors were masters in their trades so he agreed with Mr. Carrick that they had a very

good set of inspectors. He thought Mr. Carrick was saying the quality of the inspection was going to depend on the

quality of the inspector. It was a good key point. He also agreed that it would be beneficial if the County adopted a code

that they adopt the same code the City was using since they were so close together.

Mr. Jacques thanked everyone for coming and providing input. Another hearing would be held at the same time in two

weeks for the public. He invited everyone to attend. The committee would be making a recommendation as to what they

felt was appropriate. Ultimately, the County Commissioners would make the final decision. Mr. Jacques suggested if

anyone felt strongly one way or the other to contact them also.


of 6


Garfield Community Center Shelter House

Wednesday, October 14, 2015 – 5:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order

Members Present: Ivan Weichert, Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales, Neil Carlson, Chuck Dultmeier, Richard Faulkner, Brian

Jacques, Nancy Johnson, John Lyle

Members Absent: Robert Archer, Karl McNorton, Dave Watson, Harold Ramsey

Staff Present: Barry T. Beagle, Planning Director; Joelee Charles, Administrative Assistant

Brian Jacques, Chair, called the public meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was due to the County

Commission’s request for the committee to look at the feasibility of adopting a building code in Shawnee County. The

committee will submit a recommendation after they have completed their considerable review and discussion.

The details of a program as far as enforcement, inspections, fees, licensing, etc. have not been determined. Their purpose

was to decide if the adoption of a building code made sense. Their report was due to the County Commission by

December 1. At that time, he anticipated they would consider it and direct them to proceed or decide they were not going

to adopt it.

He opened the floor for comments. He requested they come to the microphone, write their name on the list and announce

their name. All comments should be directed to the Chair. There would be a time limit of three minutes.

Mr. Ron Lessman, 4124 NE Brier Road, Topeka, Kansas 66616

Had the most unusual house in Topeka.

Referenced a song from a TV show called Cookie Cutter Houses, Cookie Cutter Neighborhoods, Cookie Cutter

Yards.

Didn’t want Shawnee County to be so standardized that there was no innovation in housing.

A few years ago he averaged out the cost of houses in Topeka from the newspaper.

Average house in Topeka sold for $120 square foot.

Built an 8,000 foot house for $20/foot because he built it from the dump.

Didn’t want Shawnee County to restrict houses being built like they did in Topeka where used lumber couldn’t be

used.

It had 8,000’ floor space, 8,000’ wiring, 75+ breakers, six different elevations, an elevator and a 40’ bridge.

A standard house used 18 inch centers and he used 2 foot centers with 2 foot spacing and had a 2 inch thick floor.

Seemed to him that there was no need for the government to regulate how people built their own houses.

Was in favor of full disclosure on how a house was built.

No one should walk into a house thinking it was built one way and find out it was built another way.

The County steadfastly denied them an occupancy permit for their house and there was no such thing.

They moved in anyways.

Mr. Carlson asked Mr. Lessman about the plumbing. Mr. Lessman said they had a septic tank and it was all modern.

Mr. Carlson asked if it met any standards and if he did the work. Mr. Lessman said he did it all himself. Mr. Carlson said

that wouldn’t change. Homeowners could still do the work as long as it complied with the code and met the standards.

Mr. Lessman said there was no code in Shawnee County. Mr. Carlson said that was what they wanted to change.

Mr. Lessman said he thought they wanted to find out how the public felt. Not to be able to change how it was. The

people he knew that lived in the County didn’t want the County to come in and inspect everything they did. Mr. Carlson

said as a plumbing contractor he had been exposed to a lot of really bad plumbing in the County. Many things weren’t

completed right. All they wanted was a minimum standard to be met when a person completed a project. He wasn’t

trying to say they couldn’t do it. He wasn’t saying what Mr. Lessman did was wrong. They were thinking about

establishing a minimum standard that had to be met.

of 6

Mr. Lessman said any decent contractor would tell you that they did it the way the standard was or they would be sued

and that was what insurance companies were for. Mr. Carlson said he didn’t have to follow a code in the County. But his

legal responsibility and liability was that he had to complete projects to the code or closely to the code in order for them to

be acceptable. If he didn’t, he would be liable because he did it wrong. He didn’t want to stop Mr. Lessman from doing

anything. He wanted it completed to a standard that met minimum standards.

Mr. Lessman said he understood they wanted to keep it as efficient and productive as possible but didn’t want them to

limit their view of how people should build their houses on what standard. Mr. Carlson said that what they ran into was

people building their houses and they were happy but when they tried to sell it, a home inspector came in and found things

wrong. Then they had to spend thousands of dollars to make it meet a minimum standard. Then the homeowner was

upset with the County and upset with their builder because they thought that they were getting a minimum standard home.

They weren’t trying to stop Mr. Lessman. They just wanted the minimum standards met.

Mr. Lessman said the standard would be 2x4 walls. He had 2x6 walls. Mr. Carlson said there were minimum standards

for plumbing, for electrical, for mechanical and for concrete. Mr. Lessman said if you were building a house with any

kind of reputation, you’d want to build them that way. But don’t leave out the fact that people can change that standard

and be just as efficient. Mr. Carlson said those were minimum standards that were established nationwide. They weren’t

trying to reinvent the wheel. They weren’t trying to make the County be dominant. They were just trying to meet the

standards.

Mr. Lessman said he thought that should be up to the plumber and the individual homeowner. If it was okay with the

homeowner, it should be okay. If they were selling house, they should inform the next owner beforehand. They couldn’t

deceive anyone. That would be impractical anyway. Mr. Carlson said if whoever built their house and didn’t to the

minimum standards, then the next buyer wouldn’t buy the house or the person selling the house had to come up with.

Mr. Lessman said when you got your building permit, you had to show how the house was going to be built.

Mr. Carlson said at the present time there was no building code. There was a building permit process but no standards to

meet. That was what they were trying to establish. Mr. Lessman said when you’re a carpenter you build the house in a

standard manner. That should be the case anyways. But if you deviated from that standard, the County shouldn’t get in

the way.

Mr. Ash Davis, Davis Electric, 1747 SW Webster Avenue, Topeka, Kansas 66604

Currently lived in the city but was purchasing a house in Shawnee County in six months.

A member of the electrical board for the City.

In favor for a few reasons.

Also a volunteer firefighter in Shawnee County.

Was an electrician licensed and bonded in the City.

When bidding jobs in the County, he did so using the NEC standards which were the same he would use in the City

because that was what his insurance and bonding required him to do.

If he went up against four other contractors and they weren’t going to use arc fault breakers and GFCI receptacles and

include the protective measures needed for our children in those houses, when he went to a house to perform service

and that house wasn’t up to code, then he was liable for that home.

Wouldn’t want his children to be in a home that wasn’t built up to a standard just for their personal safety.

From a firefighter’s perspective, he didn’t want to go into a burning home that didn’t have the safety measures that

were needed.

He wasn’t saying a receptacle was needed every 6 foot or some of the devices the City was requiring in every single

home.

If he was in a house fire, he wanted the appropriate breakers to be tripped that needed to be tripped.

If there was a house and a barn, he wanted to be able to go to the house and shut the barn off and leave the house on.

Hopefully his comments would help them make some choices.

He knew the City was very stringent on a couple of issues.

Some he was in favor of and some not.

As Mr. Carlson said, every time he went to a home to perform a service, it made his job very difficult.

If the newer homes from 2015 forward met a minimum standard, whether there were service or safety issues, he

didn’t have to go back to his insurance company and inform them he wanted to do a service on a home and update

of 6

some things. But his insurance agent would tell him not to touch that house. Because if he did work in it then the

insurance company would be on the line for the service he performed.

Hoped for minimum standard code requirements just as Mr. Carlson said but didn’t want it to go overboard

Had been in some code enforcement meetings with Mr. Dultmeier and some things went a little overboard.

It would be nice to have a minimum code standard that was enforced for every house.

Was in favor.

Mr. Gales asked for Mr. Davis’ feedback. He understood there was a discrepancy as to what the minimum standard was.

There was also talk about reputation. Usually it had to deal with the fact that someone had been performing services for a

number of years, had an established business and had a reputation. There was an assumption that those working had been

doing so for a number of years when the reality was they knew that wasn’t the case. Some people were just getting

started. There were others that had been working for many years and had lots of clientele to verify their quality and

craftsmanship. He thought they wanted to hear from those that policed themselves and how they would recommend it be

done. Everyone wanted their profession to be looked upon favorably. If an owner was looking for people to take over

their business or they wanted to get someone else started in the business to compliment a service they provided, there

would be the expectation that they would provide them what codes or sets of rules to be used. Without anything in place

in the County, no one could agree as to what was right. So he thought hearing from people like Mr. Davis to help make

sure that those that were getting started or those that didn’t necessarily have an established reputation, they could provide

them guidelines by which to operate on equal ground.

Mr. Davis said he thought that was great. And there does come a point to where if you were building a home or business

and you allocated someone from the County who was going out. He knew Karl McNorton and did a lot of work with

Soldier and Mission Townships. Every now and then they would inspect a building within their fire district to make sure

it was going to be safe for the occupants. When you hired someone and minimally trained them on what to look for in the

codes and building inspections, then they could inspect to make sure it was safe. From a contractor’s point of view, he

wanted to make sure the competition he was up against was building within the safety zone. He didn’t want to see a

house three years later not standing because the electrical work was shoddy and the house burned down and someone died

there. He wanted to protect lives and save people and run a very efficient reputable business as he had for 11 years. He

had a good reputation because he had expectations and followed above the minimum requirements for what was required.

Hopefully that answered some of their questions and provided some food for thought.

Mr. Jacques asked Mr. Davis why his insurance company wouldn’t let him work on some of the homes. Was that because

there was no standard in the County or was it because they wouldn’t let him fix only part of the problem and not all the

problem. Mr. Davis said there were two jobs and a house that had open splicing. The owner wanted to sell the home and

asked him to look at it because there were some things not working. He looked in the attic and found a lot of things that

the previous homeowner had completed that needed to be fixed. Once you dove into something like that and altered a

wire, he would be responsible for what happened in that home. He could put on his invoice detailed to kitchen attic. But

when the house burned down and someone died or became disabled, he would take on the liability of that home. He

called his insurance company and asked his agent if he should redo the whole house. His agent said if he was slightly

concerned about it, he said to walk away from it. There were other jobs he could complete that weren’t going to bother

him because there were other people who would take on the liability. As a reputable business, that was not something that

he wanted to be involved with.

Mr. Faulkner said the building code was intended to provide safety for the individuals that occupied a structure. The

building code was not so rigid as to when new technologies came along that variances or exceptions couldn’t be asked for.

The building code was designed based on tried and true testing. To use the code was simple. Just follow the code, no

problems. It was already tested and it worked. If there was a new widget, the building code allowed the municipality to

adopt a board made up of professionals in the field to listen to the changes. If they were sound changes, the board could

override or issue a variance to a particular building code. It was something that could be fluid if it was adopted along with

adoption of the building board of code of appeals or mechanical board or electrical board. Each one of those could be

adopted. If someone had a different design that could be demonstrated to be safe, then it could be brought to the board.

Mr. Dultmeier said if there was a future committee, he hoped they would follow the general bridgework that had been

done by the City. He thought it would be an easy in to the 2009 IRC and was involved with the committee that adopted it.

The committee went through and made amendments that worked for Kansas. Recently, they went through the NEC. He

knew in the building of the subdivision specs, the County Head Engineer, Tom Flanagan, adopted exactly what the City

of 6

had so it made it simple for the road builders. He was hoping if he was on a future committee that they would put

together something similar.

Ms. Nancy Coates, 1471 NW Taylor Street, Topeka, Kansas 66608

Owned property in the County and the City.

Said the City had multiple problems right now.

Asked if it meant that all the old houses that a lot of poor people live in couldn’t be insured now if they were

inspected and not up to date.

Asked if it involved new homes or old homes.

Mr. Jacques said he didn’t think there was any expectation that a homeowner would be required to make changes to their

current home. He thought there were rules in place. If changes were made to a home and it was not up to code, as part of

completing improvements you would be required to bring it up to code as you did them. If you didn’t open the walls and

start changing the wiring even if it was old, the County would not come in and say you had to change it. But once

improvements were made, it would have to be done right. Ms. Coates asked if those changes would have to be completed

by a licensed electrician. Mr. Jacques said they would. Ms. Coates asked if they would need a licensed contractor in the

County for new construction. Mr. Jacques said the purpose of the committee was to decide if a building code should be

adopted or not. Another committee possibly in the future would make those decisions. Ms. Coates asked if it was only in

the three mile area. Mr. Jacques said it would affect the whole County. Ms. Coates said it was just a little area. A lot of

people might be out of that three mile area dying. She asked if a licensed electrician would be required for the whole

County. Mr. Jacques said that was yet to be determined. Ms. Coates asked if there was a big problem in the County with

not having licensed contractors completing the work. When she bought something, she had appraisers come in and

inspect everything. When they built their new house, her loan officer was really nitty gritty on everything. She asked if

there was a big problem.

Mr. Weichert said he was sure there were people that would love to say there wasn’t a big problem. But he would ask

how many people had to be hurt, how many people had to die and when they reached that would everyone then be okay

with having a code. He was in favor of having a code so that possibility would be eliminated. He hoped that someday the

County would adopt a minimum building code and it would be enforced.

Ms. Johnson wanted it to be clear that it would only affect the unincorporated parts of the County. Rossville and places

like that would not be affected. Mr. Jacques said he thought they had their own code. Ms. Johnson said that Ms. Coates

had mentioned the whole county.

Mr. Carlson said if you worked in Rossville, Silver Lake and Auburn you met the minimum standard. Their liability

made them meet that minimum standard. All they were asking for was the County to establish a minimum standard that

everyone had to meet.

Ms. Johnson said they weren’t talking about the licensed contractors that were present. They were talking about the John

Doe who was not licensed who wanted to build and that was a problem in the County. It was not the general contractors

they were addressing. So in all fairness when John Doe decided to build, he was held accountable too.

Mr. Greg Debacker

Asked why not Silver Lake and Rossville.

Mr. Jacques said they only had jurisdiction over the unincorporated portion. Each of those individual cities would have to

adopt their own or accept the County’s.

Mr. Greg Debacker

Was in Breckenridge, Colorado last winter and they had a ten cent tax on every plastic bag sold.

We have Home Depot, Lowes and Menards selling.

Back when he got into the industry, you had to be a contractor to go to a wholesale house and you had to have a

license to buy equipment or materials.

Said the code felt good.

Talked about the people who made purchases at Home Depot, Lowes and Menards on the weekends.

of 6

Maybe they could put a tax or something on a hot water heater that was bought at any of those places or they had to

get a permit before they could buy that water heater and replace it on their own.

This was a feel good thing but it was such a big industry.

Didn’t know if the end all would be solved. Questioned how many materials were sold at those places.

Mr. Tim Lohse, 7520 SW 61st Street, Topeka, KS 66610

Homeowner in Shawnee County.

Asked if the minimum codes would apply to new construction.

Asked if there was an addition put on a house, would it apply only to the addition or for the whole house.

Mr. Jacques said that wasn’t really an issue they were addressing. They could tell him how it worked in the City.

Mr. Lohse said if they were going to adopt a minimum code, he agreed with it because it was safe for everyone. He asked

if you were putting on an addition, would if only include the new addition or would you have to renovate the whole house.

Mr. Faulkner said it would only pertain to the addition. Mr. Jacques said that was how it worked in the City.

Mr. Carlson said it would depend on how much work was being done. Mr. Lohse said he understood. Mr. Carlson said if

it was a 30 or 40 percent total remodel on the house, then the new plumbing wouldn’t match the old plumbing and it

would affect the whole house. If someone was going to add three bathrooms onto a two bathroom house, it would affect

it. It wasn’t a simple thing. You had to consider what you were doing. Even with the City code, some remodeling could

be done without changing very much. If you were adding a lot more than what was already there, then he would have to

consider the fact that the water service was way too small. It would just depend on what someone was doing and it would

affect remodel in that respect.

Mr. Lohse asked if he had to have three aces with 300’ frontage in the County in order to build a house. Mr. Jacques said

it would depend. Mr. Beagle said it would depend on the location in the County. He said the City of Topeka adopted new

standards within the three mile area. Within that area, an owner would be allowed to subdivide tracts of land still at three

acres but now the frontage would have to be 300’. A lot depth to width ratio of 1 to 2 was now imposed which meant the

lot could not be two times deeper than it was wide. Everything beyond the three mile limit was still subject to the three

acre, 200’ frontage standard. Mr. Lohse said so they could go in and get a replat to build on. Mr. Beagle said any time

you wanted to deviate from that plat exemption standard and create a lot that was smaller than three acres or was less than

the required frontage, the option would then be to plat the property on a smaller tract. Mr. Lohse asked if the 300’

wouldn’t matter if it was replatted. Mr. Beagle said that was correct with either the frontage or the acreage. Then it

would be based upon if it was going to be served by an individual onsite septic system then the soil perk test would

determine what the minimum lot size would be. Platting didn’t forgive everything. You would still have to make that lot

work.

Mr. Carlson recognized Mr. Bruce Pfeiffer who was the head plumbing inspector at the City of Topeka and the president

of IAPMO, a national code association. He worked with Bruce everyday on plumbing problems and he served on the

plumbing board for the City. As it was stated earlier, they were open to new changes and new adaptations. They

approved things that weren’t necessarily code wise. If a code was adopted in the County, he hoped the County board

would be as receptive as the City was.

Mr. Lohse asked how much the cost would be. Mr. Jacques said it would be difficult to determine the scope, nature and

cost. The committee wasn’t charged with doing that. Although they recognized in looking at it from an adoption

standpoint, they had talked about concerns of potential ongoing costs and whether the program would be self sustaining

and also there would likely be initial start up costs. If the decision was made to go forward, those things would have to be

incorporated and reviewed as part of a plan. This step was to look at a building code and a future committee would put

together a program including the details. Mr. Lohse asked if the City would take over the three mile area. The three mile

area was related to the subdivision issues and would not affect the building code issue.


His point about the minimum was that in Topeka used lumber couldn’t be used to build houses.

There was nothing wrong with using used lumber.

Wasn’t a good minimum.

of 6

Mr. Faulkner said the code allowed the building office to make a judgment call on that. If a person had some used lumber

that they wanted to use and a building code was adopted, it would be up to the building code official to look at the used

lumber. All used lumber as well as new lumber had different grades. Depending on the grade and the condition of the

lumber even though it was used, it could be used for construction. There was some new lumber that you wouldn’t use in

certain areas of construction just like you wouldn’t use some used lumber. As he stated earlier, the code had minimal

requirements and the code official could make a determination whether that lumber could be used in a structure the way

the person wanted to use it.


The minimum said you couldn’t use used lumber in the City.

Someone had said it couldn’t be used because it didn’t qualify.

He was saying that minimum was not that good of a prospect to begin with.

Said you were supposed to use 8 foot or 6 foot walls. He only had 4 foot walls in his house.

Said his house was built out of metal and the floors were made from used lumber.

Ms. Johnson made the motion to adjourn if there were no further comments.

With no further comments, Mr. Jacques thanked everyone for attending. As he said earlier, this process was established

by the County Commission asking the committee to provide a recommendation which was due by December 1. A link for

the committee’s information had been established on the Planning Department’s website. Their recommendation would

be available there for review. And certainly when it was presented to the County Commissioners, the public could

provide their input directly to them.


of 5



Wednesday, October 28, 2015 – 5:30 p.m.

1. Call to Order


2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ivan Weichert, Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales, Chuck Dultmeier, Richard Faulkner, Brian Jacques

Members Absent: Robert Archer, Karl McNorton, Dave Watson, Harold Ramsey, Nancy Johnson, Neil Carlson, John Lyle



3. Approval of September 16, 30, and October 14, 2015, Committee Minutes

The approval of the minutes was continued to the next meeting.

4. Set Dates for Next Two Meetings

Mr. Jacques said two November meeting dates needed to be set. Due to the holidays in November, they could not meet on

November 11th and November 25

th. He suggested Wednesday, November 18

th, and Monday, November 30

th. The

November 18th meeting would be utilized to review a draft of the recommendation and the November 30

th meeting would

be utilized to review a final recommendation to be submitted to the County Commission on December 1st. Everyone

agreed on the two meeting dates suggested.

5. Finalize SWOT Analysis and Prioritize SWOT Responses

Mr. Jacques said they had heard testimony, gathered information and now needed to come to a consensus for a recommendation to be

for or against a building code in order to write the report. He believed the consensus of the committee was in favor. There was some

question as to the exact wording of the recommendation. Discussion by the members established it would be based on feasibility and

public benefits. There were no objections to Mr. Jacques’ recommendation. Mr. Beagle indicated he had put together the start of a

draft report for their review.

Mr. Jacques suggested prioritizing the lists under each category of the SWOT Analysis and decide if each item was relevant or a

duplicate and come to a consensus.

Mr. Campbell commented that he was amazed and disappointed at the minimal turnout and the comments from both the builders and

the homeowners. Not one homeowner said they wanted one and all seemed to have more questions than comments. He wasn’t for or

against but he wasn’t as in favor as he felt before. He wanted to comment since Mr. Jacques said they were in favor and since there

weren’t any negatives. He thought there would be more support from both groups. Mr. Jacques said there possibly were some outside

factors that affected the attendance from the public meeting and was also surprised.

Mr. Campbell said those who spoke at the meetings asked more about the details of a program just as the committee had. He

struggled with saying a building code was needed until he knew more. The committee was charged though to determine if it was right

or wrong to promote one. He wanted to put on record that he wasn’t certain.

Mr. Dultmeier was also disappointed with the turnout. He had talked to trades peoples who were in favor. He wondered whether the

people were going to show up when the Commissioners made their decision. Or was it going to be just the naysayers. He also wanted

to see what the program would look like. He questioned how they would determine the feasibility without any details.

Mr. Beagle thought maybe it was his fault for limiting the committee. He wanted to bring the idea of a building code to the County

Commission in a non threatening manner. If enough information came from the committee, then the Commission would move

forward with ironing out the details of a building code program. It was difficult. Instead of dealing in the practical, they were dealing

with the theoretical. He appreciated Mr. Campbell’s and Mr. Dultmeier’s comments. It was difficult to talk about the feasibility,

public benefits, etc. without getting into the details. Mr. Jacques said it had been a consistent theme throughout their discussions and

thought including some of it into their proposal made sense.

of 5

Mr. Faulkner asked what happened when the City was inspecting out in the County. Mr. Beagle said a referendum was put together

shortly after the breakup of the City/County Planning program. The City decided to reaffirm their subdivision regulations in the three

mile area and extend their building permit authority which was statutory. However, there were enough people in the three mile area

that said the City was imposing yet another regulatory standard on them. They couldn’t vote for City Council representatives. There

was a fear that the City was marching out into the unincorporated area with their codes and regulations and the citizens had no voice.

The referendum was put together and enough signatures were collected for a special ballot election. The majority voted and said no.

He didn’t know what motivated the voters. The common theme that kept coming back was the old taxation without representation.

They didn’t vote for the codes and regulations. Mr. Dultmeier said during that period they were required to get permits from the City

and the County. Mr. Faulkner said it sounded like there were other issues than just it being the building code. Mr. Beagle said things

were raw between the City and the County because of the breakup of the planning programs. It was an uncomfortable time.

Mr. Beagle wasn’t sure why there was a low turnout for the two special public meetings. When notices were sent out about an issue

on the Planning Commission Agenda, generally the people who showed up were the ones who had a problem with the proposal and

felt threatened in some way. The ones that did not care and thought it was a great idea did not show up. He wasn’t saying that was

the case. Typically those who felt threatened by a proposal were the ones who showed up and in the larger numbers.

Mr. Dultmeier was very much in favor of the code and code enforcement. It would depend on where this would take them. He didn’t

believe in the rigid 2012 IRC without some kind of concessions to make it feasible for the public to buy into it. He wanted it to be

similar to the City. It would make it easier for the community as a whole. He knew there would be some cost involved but it had to

be held to a minimum so the public could afford it. It would cost more. The City subsidized their commercial. Mr. Campbell thought

there were other projects being completed other than commercial structures/residential homes that the City required permits for. He

wanted to know if they were proposing that part of it. Mr. Dultmeier assumed it included the remodels, additions, trade permits, etc.

He thought those would be necessary to make it work.

Mr. Beagle said even if the County Commission accepted the report and formed another committee to work out the details, they still

reserved the right to disapprove it based on cost, etc. There was still no commitment by the County Commission to adopt it even if the

details were defined. It had to prove itself out as they continued to go through the process. There were a lot of details they couldn’t

even begin to conceive at this point because they tried to avoid getting down into the weeds and have a more theoretical discussion.

Mr. Weichert was glad they were handling it this way. It was worth doing. Others before had put a lot of hard work/effort in

preparing detailed programs that were submitted to the different County Commissions only to be dumped. He felt they had one

County Commissioner in their midst who had heard some good things. Whether that Commissioner would vote for or against it, he

wasn’t sure. To him it was a very simple question much like should they have speed limits on public roads. He didn’t want to know

how much the signs and fines would cost or what the speed limit would be. It was a simple question and who could say no to that. He

wasn’t too worried about the turnout. It was a real valued question for their community. How would you build your community if it

wasn’t built to some standard. They had no idea of the total crap that was out there. Only when people hired a remodeler would they

find out that substandard work was done and then would have to pay. Maybe they got their building permit pretty cheap at one point.

Now they had to pay out thousands of dollars to correct what was done with no recourse. They wouldn’t go to the County

Commission and say they should fix this. They didn’t know it was an option. He hoped for a positive response from the County

Commission in agreeing their community should have a minimum building code. The next step would take longer and be difficult;

however, it was worth doing. He didn’t think they had a right but a choice to make a decision. He didn’t think it was a right that they

get to say yes or no. If they said no again, he was done asking.

Mr. Dultmeier couldn’t fathom them saying no. He thought a minimum standard was probably something the public should want.

The Commissioners should look after the public.

Mr. Gales agreed but found it odd that there was no standard. It was viewed as the wild west because there was no enforcement to

verify the experienced or new contactors were building to the same standards. In a civilized society it seemed odd to him. Our

County included the state capital. The committee needed to focus on what they heard in their previous discussions. Their role was to

make a simple decision of whether they should or should not make a recommendation to the County Commissioners to adopt a

building code. From that point he thought it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission to agree they were going to do it and

then to choose some standardization they could build from or adapt to. Even the City would acknowledge they had adjusted the

standardized codes and found what everyone could agree to. If the County adopted the code, they would have to go through the same

effort. He hoped at that point they would learn from others’ lessons. If they got to that point, it would be great.

Mr. Gales said they weren’t worried about the successful builders with years of experience and a successful track record. There was

no way to verify those who just rode into town. Or those that came in after a storm and did a bunch of work. There was no means by

which to hold them accountable or track them. The homeowners they worked for were basically at their mercy of buyer beware. It

was a different environment and a little different than buying a loaf of bread off the shelf. He thought they needed to be sensitive to

that when they decided on their recommendation.

Mr. Jacques suggested prioritizing and ranking the items in the Threats category. The Strengths category had been talked about

extensively. He wondered if Priced Out of Market and Cost were duplicative unless they were talking about the cost of the program.

of 5

Mr. Beagle said Mr. Lyle had suggested Cost. Mr. Weichert didn’t think Cost or Priced Out of Market were valid threats. If that

were true, no one would build in the City because it would be too expensive. Mr. Jacques viewed it as competing with the City. For

example, if the cost to build in the County was $5,000 and $1,200 in the City, more builders would build in the City than in the

County. Mr. Dultmeier thought there was more fluctuation in their industry when interest rates started jumping. They had enjoyed the

3 to 5%. He thought 7 to 9% was reasonable but they were going to see a slow down.

Mr. Jacques said deciding on where you build was not based upon a regulatory structure. People built homes where they wanted to

live. Mr. Dultmeier said where he built was based on where he could develop. He preferred to build in subdivisions. He got crowded

out of the City since they weren’t annexing. He got squeezed into the County and he wanted the same type of building codes,

regulations and inspections.

Mr. Campbell said typically with a SWOT Analysis the idea was to get all the ideas on paper and then narrow them down to the top

two or three important ones in each category. He suggested picking the top two or three because they needed to present the negatives

and the positives as well as the most important ones. If they did that with each area, they would quickly get a whole lot cleaner

SWOT Analysis. Mr. Jacques thought that was a great approach. Mr. Dultmeier said they had not talked about the young people who

wanted to learn the right way. These programs would teach them.

Mr. Jacques suggested picking the top three items under Threats. Mr. Campbell said Gaps in Insurance Coverage seemed to be the

top one for him. Others agreed. Mr. Weichert said that Cost and Priced Out of Market were the same. There was the cost to the

builder or the cost to the homeowner. Mr. Campbell looked at it from a Threats perspective, he thought it was all geared towards

what they were explaining to the County Commission on how they were going to handle the cost was a threat to the program. But that

didn’t mean it didn’t get done. It was something to be aware of.

Mr. Gales said Cost was a viable concern. He thought Priced Out of Market was an anxiety response and also relative. He said

Cost should stand on its own. If they were going to eliminate one, it would be Priced Out of Market. He didn’t disagree that it was

something that could raise the cost. But it was like paying a tax. People would adjust and the market would adapt to the extra cost.

Mr. Dultmeier said one of the builders at the meetings said that he didn’t want this to come into the County because it would cost him

$7,000 more but he would build it for the same amount. Mr. Campbell asked if he was correct in suggesting they delete Priced Out

of Market. Mr. Gales said it was hard to quantify what Priced Out of Market was. The threat of increased cost was justifiable. For

those on a set budget they would have to adapt to the increased cost by reducing their own budget or increasing the loan. Others

agreed. Mr. Jacques said to remove Priced Out of Market.

Mr. Jacques asked if they wanted to keep Loss of Qualified Builders and Competitive. Mr. Weichert had clearly heard one of the

people at the public meetings say he thought this was being done to protect the product and not the builder which was right on target.

They knew it could be a benefit of clearing out some substandard workers but it was not the reason. Mr. Gales said the building code

was not going to drive out the qualified people but would eliminate the guy who wasn’t building to a standard and quoting lower costs.

He would have to compete on equal ground to someone who was building to a standard. The threat wasn’t the Loss of Qualified

Builders but it was the opposite. The strength was to keep the qualified builders because their product at their price would now be

justified because everyone would have to meet that minimum expectation. Mr. Campbell didn’t understand why Loss of Qualified

Builders/Development and Cost were in Threats. Mr. Beagle said Mr. Watson had previously provided the suggestion of

Competitive. Mr. Gales said it wasn’t a result of experienced or qualified talent that was being impacted but there was a difference in

not having to pay a fee in the County. The building code meant that whether you were qualified/not qualified, experienced/not

experienced, met a minimum standard or not, the cost was going to make the difference and not the qualifications.

Mr. Campbell suggested changing Cost to Cost of the Program and add Cost of the Product because of the inspections. He wasn’t

sure about the order. That was where cost could get convoluted. Was it the cost of the product or was it the cost to the County to

produce the inspections? Cost was relevant because if charged properly the City was successful in making a profit.

Through discussion, the order of the items under Threats now included: 1. Gaps in Insurance Coverage (Building Ordinance of

Law), 2. Cost of Program, 3. Cost of Product (Fees).

Mr. Gales asked if everyone was comfortable with the changes since they eliminated two recommendations and maybe those that had

made those suggestions weren’t present. He questioned whether it was unfair if some members weren’t present. Mr. Faulkner said it

was a rough draft. They could come back and plead their case.

Mr. Beagle asked if they could make a distinction between the Cost of Program and Cost of Enforcement under Weaknesses.

Mr. Gales suggested Cost of Administration of Program because it was the actual operation of the program; whereas the cost of the

product was the fee or the permit.

Mr. Jacques asked if they were looking at Weaknesses. Mr. Beagle said under Weaknesses it said Cost of Enforcement-Indirect

and Direct Cost. He took that to mean both taxpayer support and the direct cost to the builder/consumer for what they pay in fees.

Mr. Jacques thought it was a weakness. Mr. Beagle asked what the difference was between Cost of Program and Cost of

of 5

Enforcement and wondered if they overlapped. Others agreed. Mr. Campbell was struggling to see the Cost of Enforcement as a

weakness. It was more of a threat. From that context, they were trying to decide if it was a good idea or not.

Mr. Gales asked if they were best suited to be a threat and less in weakness because they have several others that were more applicable

to Weaknesses. Mr. Campbell agreed. For instance, the Bureaucracy, Speed or the Enforcement. What was better suited to be

under the Weaknesses. Mr. Campbell said the bottom three seemed to be the best Weaknesses. For Bureaucracy, you could have

arguments both ways. The Speed was going to slow down the process and the Uncertainty of Grandfathered Structures was

something that would need to be addressed as a potential weakness to the program. Those all made sense as Weaknesses. Code

Enforcement didn’t seem to be a weakness. Mr. Jacques said it was the effect that you would be getting. Mr. Campbell said the Cost

of Enforcement and Unfunded Start-Up Costs weren’t weaknesses to the program. Unfunded Start-Up Costs if anything came

down to the Cost of Program in Threats. With those changes, Weaknesses would now be 1. Bureaucracy, 2. Speed,

3. Uncertainty of Grandfathered Structures. Everyone was in agreement with the changes.

Mr. Jacques had consistently thought Insurance was questionable under Opportunities. Mr. Beagle said he did some additional

research through the Insurance Services Office (ISO) and found there was a program called the Building Code Effectiveness Grading

System (BCEGS). Fire departments had an ISO rating. The County had an ISO rating for floodplain management. Communities

were also rated based on the effectiveness of their building code programs. If they had a dedicated department, a chief building

official, qualified staff, completed plan reviews and field inspections, it affected the communities actuarial rating. The insurance

people had said it was deep down at corporate which was the BCEGS. He said the only reason he thought it was seen as an

opportunity was the insurance rates are what they are now as an unprotected community with no code at all. If there was an ISO

rating above where we were now, we would get a premium discount based upon reduced risk. Mr. Beagle said that was his only

analogy for opportunity. Mr. Campbell said if you were talking about opportunities and insurability and savings, it was almost two

things. After various suggestions, the members decided on Insurance Savings (BCEGS).

Mr. Jacques moved on to Competitive with Other Locations. Mr. Beagle thought it was seen most from an economic development

perspective. Mr. Campbell thought it needed to be worded differently. They reviewed the original comments. Mr. Gales said if

someone was moving from back east where they didn’t allow anything to be built without an architect, there was a perception of a

better quality of product. Here it was perceived as the wild west because anything goes and no one wanted to move here and live in

homes that weren’t inspected. The title didn’t fit. Mr. Beagle said it didn’t get to the heart of what it was saying.

Mr. Gales thought it was a deeper issue. He had heard from others that there were reasons why when people moved here, they

immediately went to Lawrence or somewhere else to look for homes. They were concerned about the existing products in the County

if they didn’t have time to complete their research. He was sure in the marketplace people would tell you what you wanted to hear and

would justify anything you want to do. He asked if it was going to be one of the top three Opportunities. Mr. Jacques wasn’t sure.

Mr. Gales argued that Loss of Inexperienced/Substandard Builders should be considered as one of the top three but suggested it be

rephrased. He thought instead of Loss of Inexperienced/Substandard Builders, it should say reduction or limiting inexperienced or

substandard builders. He thought by creating some standards and minimum expectations, it was a perceived positive result to start

weeding out those that didn’t meet those standards. They also had to conform which would make them more competitive with those

that were established. Mr. Jacques said it had said bad builders. He thought a reduction of inexperienced. Mr. Beagle had a thought

from listening to Mr. Gales. Maybe it was just conforming to a uniform minimum standard. Instead of emphasizing that they were

weeding out the bad builders, maybe they were achieving conformity with a minimum construction standard. He didn’t know if that

was saying the same thing or not.

Mr. Weichert suggested Improved Builder Compliance. Don’t make it negative at all since it was under Opportunities.

Mr. Dultmeier said it would create a better product. They wanted something positive. Mr. Weichert said inexperience didn’t mean it

was bad. Ms. Ortega suggested Better Records because they got a lot of calls for house plans. A lot of people didn’t submit those.

When people were buying houses, they wanted the house plans and they weren’t available. Mr. Jacques suggested to replace Loss

with Education. If someone was inexperienced, they would be shown what was right and it would be the same if they were

substandard. Mr. Jacques excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Gales said it was an excellent point since it was an opportunity to

educate. He suggested replacing Loss with Educate Inexperienced/Substandard Builders. He liked it because the whole premise

of it was an opportunity to take someone talented and new in the business and make sure they were educated. Mr. Dultmeier said

inform and educate the industry. Mr. Gales said it could be an education process and an opportunity so builders weren’t out there

doing things on their own without any oversight.

Mr. Campbell asked if they could use the four suggestions they had come up under Opportunities. Mr. Gales said if they were all

legitimate, they should be listed. Mr. Campbell said if the goal was to explain the benefits, the benefits needed to be bigger than the

detriments. It would provide a more competitive market place which was positive and working with the City could be a positive thing.

He requested to leave it with the four and move on to Strengths. Everyone was in agreement.

Mr. Beagle confirmed they wanted Competitive Market. All agreed. He also confirmed they wanted Working with City. It meant

there would be an opportunity to utilize City personnel and inspection processes within the unincorporated area. Mr. Gales suggested

using Partnership with the City of Topeka or Collaboration. Mr. Campbell said he like Partnership better. Mr. Gales asked why

of 5

we would create a redundant framework initially when maybe we could partner with the City on some aspects until we established

what was right and best for the County so it could stand alone. Everyone was in agreement.

Mr. Weichert suggested moving Health and Safety to #1 under Strengths.

Mr. Gales said Safe Harbor eliminated the unknown or the anxiety from a concerned client or a competitor. People could make

accusations as to what was being done. But if builders were held to a certain minimum standard, followed the code and inspections

confirmed that, you’ve established a sense of safe harbor. It created a sense of working in the system. It didn’t mean everything was

perfect. If a builder was worried about getting sued all the time and the project was inspected and something was questioned and it

met a minimum standard, a safe harbor would be established. When they talked about ADA or accessibility standards that phrase was

used continuously throughout on behalf of the owner. The owner established a minimum safe harbor when certain amenities or

accessibility was provided. It was somewhat applicable here whether it was residential or commercial level. By requiring structures

to be built to a minimum standard, it offered a safe harbor not only to the owner but to the builder/developer. Mr. Faulkner suggested

Dependable Structure or Dependable Product. Safe Harbor was just not self explanatory. It would have to be explained.

Mr. Campbell wondered if it would go well with #4 Continuity. He asked if it was the same thing and what did it mean. Mr. Gales

said that might be more of a standard. That might deal more with process. Mr. Beagle tried to remember how Ms. Johnson

interpreted it. He thought it had to do with enforcement. Everyone would be required to do the same thing and there would be

continuity. He could be wrong. Mr. Gales said it could fall under #6 if it was in the product. It could be under a kind of standard.

The definition said it would provide that across the board with no other explanation.

Mr. Gales mentioned Reduced Property Loss. It had been defined as most of the building codes were a result of some tragedy or

disaster. The best example would be the Chicago fire in the late 1800s which rewrote the rule book on building standards.

Mr. Beagle requested more information on #5 Increase in Property Values in the Long Term which was proposed by Mr. Gales.

Mr. Campbell said Mr. Gales said people might go to Lawrence instead of here. When you go to Lawrence and look at the same

house, look at the price. Mr. Dultmeier said there was a big difference. Mr. Beagle questioned the last four words of the suggestion—

in the Long Term. There was an increase in property values as a result of the implementation of the standardized code, etc.

Mr. Campbell thought it meant if a code was implemented effective January 1, 2016, that wouldn’t mean that all the homes here

would suddenly become worth more. Mr. Gales said it would affect those built the next year and over time you would get an

incremental percentage of the overall product that was done under the new standard. Mr. Campbell said if they started doing trade

permits under a standard, then you would end up with an increase. It was going to take time. Mr. Gales suggested instead of the long

term to make it over time. Mr. Beagle said it was fine now since he understood the meaning.

Mr. Campbell liked the Analysis with six strengths, four opportunities, three weaknesses and three threats. He was still confused by

Continuity and thought it could be worded better. Mr. Beagle said it was building standards or continuity of enforcement that every

project would be treated the same. It may have been about the discussion about different inspectors. Depending upon, you get one

answer from one inspector and a different answer from another inspector. It may have had something to do with along those lines.

Mr. Gales said it was a good thing. By providing Continuity, there was the expectation that inspectors would be inspecting to a

certain standard. Also if something did not meet the standard, there would be an appeals process. Currently with no Continuity, there

could be different opinions and there was nothing to indicate who had the final say. It would establish who the final arbiter was of the

decision. If the decision wasn’t liked, there was an appeal process and a Continuity in a decision. Both parties maybe right but there

would be a different perspective on it. Mr. Beagle asked how it should be worded. Mr. Gales suggested Clarity of Enforcement. He

thought it was right but the word Continuity was important. Mr. Beagle said it had to be framed within a context. Mr. Gales

suggested Continuity of Administration. Ms. Ortega suggested Continuity of Regulations. Mr. Beagle suggested Continuity of

Procedures. Mr. Gales said he like that and suggested Procedural Continuity. The others agreed.

With nothing further to add, Mr. Gales complimented everyone for doing a good job of expressing their concerns and challenges and

also vetting out some of the pros and the strengths. He thought there was still a lot of work ahead. They provided a lot information to

start with. Mr. Dultmeier said the next process really would interest him.

6. Review Beginning Draft of Committee Report to County Commission

Mr. Beagle said they would begin to put something together and work it into the report so it could be reviewed on November 18th

. A

draft report would be ready for everyone to look at.

7. Adjournment


of 6



Wednesday, November 18, 2015 – 5:15 p.m.

1. Call to Order


2. Roll Call

Members Present: Charlie Campbell, Scott Gales, Harold Ramsey, Neil Carlson, Karl McNorton, Chuck Dultmeier, Dave

Watson, Richard Faulkner, Brian Jacques

Members Absent: Ivan Weichert, Robert Archer, Nancy Johnson, John Lyle



3. Approval of September 16, 30, and October 14, 28, 2015, Committee Minutes

Mr. Jacques asked for comments, revisions or approval of the September 16, 30, and October 14, 28, 2015, meeting

minutes. Mr. McNorton moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Watson, and with a unanimous voice vote, the

minutes were approved.

4. Review Draft Committee Report to County Commission

Mr. Jacques asked if anyone had any comments on the draft previously sent to them. He suggested the committee provide

the Commission with something that outlined the next step and a time frame for the process if they approved it. He said

he didn’t know enough to establish any time lines.

Mr. Beagle suggested the committee recommend the Commission move forward with the appointment of the next

committee to define the building code program with an approximate time line. He didn’t know if anyone had any

reasonable idea of a time frame. Mr. Beagle wanted to know how long the creation of a building code program would

take and asked Mr. Faulkner for his opinion.

Mr. Faulkner said the City was looking at adopting a new code and it would take them at least a year. They would be

adopting amendments since there was a code in place. They would be meeting once a month. Mr. Carlson served on the

plumbing board for the City. They reviewed the new codes as they came in. It generally took them about six months to

review. They would then send it to the legal department and it would generally take them a year to actually implement the

code into ordinance. Mr. McNorton said when he worked at the state, it took them almost two years to get a building

code. Mr. Carlson thought two years would be a reasonable time.

Mr. Dultmeier served on the last adoption committee with the City. They spent at least an hour each time but there were a

lot of things in place already. Having the inspectors there helped tremendously. There was discussion from both sides of

the table. It would be harder for the County because they didn’t have anything in place. Mr. McNorton said once they

started talking about the code adoption then they would be asking what it was going to look like and what the cost would

be. The County would have to adopt a budget for it.

Mr. Jacques said if they thought it was important then the committee should at least have an outline in moving forward if

the Commission approved it.

Mr. Faulkner said if they didn’t want to reinvent the wheel, they could duplicate an existing code program.

Mr. McNorton suggested working with the City. Mr. Carlson agreed. If they adopted the existing City codes, they would

be okay. Mr. Ramsey said they would be recreating the wheel if they didn’t.

Mr. Jacques thought that was the general consensus. They should model the City but would need to see if any changes

were needed.

of 6

Mr. Carlson said amendments would probably be made. There would need to be a committee for each area. They would

all be volunteer positions. Each phase of the code would need to be reviewed.

Mr. Faulkner asked if they would be adopting commercial and residential building codes and what specific codes were

they going to adopt or would they only be focusing on one to two family residential. The recommendation talked about

the change in residential. Mr. Carlson said it would simplify the process.

Mr. Ramsey said if the City’s process was used and whether the County had their own inspectors or used the City’s

inspectors, it would make it simple. It would be County wide so it would eliminate confusion for the builders,

contractors, inspectors, etc. Mr. Carlson said it would be another area where the City and County co-exist. Mr. Dultmeier

agreed to move forward. Mr. Carlson asked if they needed to vote on that.

Mr. Beagle asked if they could take a recommendation on the question of should Shawnee County adopt a building code

for the unincorporated area without specifying any details. They would be agreeing that there was a net benefit to

Shawnee County in having a building code with the details being worked out through subsequent work.

Mr. Ramsey wanted to know if they went with that recommendation, would the Commissioners decide if it was going to

be residential or residential and commercial.

Mr. Beagle thought the committee hadn’t ventured that far into the weeds to answer that. He thought the committee

would give a solid recommendation to the County Commission in saying yes or no that there was evidence to support the

idea of a building code in the unincorporated area. It would then allow the process to continue by the Commission

requesting their committee to continue with the process to define the program. It would not necessarily dictate the form

and structure of that committee but allow the committee to do its work.

Mr. Ramsey asked what the marching orders were from the Commission. Mr. Beagle said the County Commission had

directed the committee to complete a high level review (stepping away from the technical day-to-day stuff and theoretical

point of view) to determine if there were advantages to the community in adopting a minimum construction code.

Mr. Ramsey asked if they were specific in residential or commercial. Mr. Beagle said nothing was specified. It was a

general question. It was considered to be a ground breaking, non threatening way of launching into the idea of a building

code in the unincorporated area. Letting this committee do its work and outline the arguments—pros and cons. The

County Commission would make their decision from their recommendation. If approved, they would define what the next

step would be.

Mr. McNorton said he fully agreed with the part about the residential code. He firmly believed what they were looking at

was probably where they needed to be going with it because of some of the stuff he has seen and dealt with was an issue.

If they didn’t consider the commercial side, no one would be looking at any aspect of the building process. The fire

services were looking at part of the construction and the fire protection systems but that only those few items. He was

concerned about the commercial structures. Mr. Ramsey thought it would seem foolish not to do something for both.

Mr. Beagle said Mr. Jacques had suggested they simply indicate as part of the final recommendation without any detail

that it would cover the comprehensive gamut of construction within the unincorporated area, residential and commercial.

Mr. Gales thought if there was consensus and even some dissension they could have an overriding agreement that there

needed to be a general code along with three or four items they associated with caveats. Those should probably not just

be residential but commercial. There ought to be serious consideration given to finding some sense of common ground

with the code adoption process the City was using. The City was currently going through the exercise of transitioning

from 2006 to 2015. Maybe that was something they needed to add if there was a consensus. Maybe another

recommendation could be how it would be implemented and to consider at least on a temporary basis partnering with the

City to utilize trained staff. If there was enough common ground, the County could use their trained staff until they could

develop a budget and staffing to manage it on their own. Maybe there were some recommendations they could pass along

then the Shawnee County Commissioners could take that into consideration as justification for doing it so they didn’t feel

they were striking out on their own.

of 6

Mr. Jacques didn’t know whether they could recommend anything because he didn’t think they knew yet. He thought

they needed to have benchmarks. If there was a two year process and the committee came up with the Cadillac approach

and then the Commissioners didn’t approve it, he didn’t want to spend two years to find that out. They needed to have a

structure on how it would go forward with steps outlined such as figuring out generally what the code would be, figuring

out the enforcement and may also include exploring the possibility of working with the City. Give them some options like

they did initially. Give us back this piece first and then we’ll decide how we’re going to move forward.

Mr. Gales said it gave the Commission room to make it their own. They could either take it under advisement and accept

part, some or none or come up with their own version of the committee’s recommendations and make it their own. But at

least they would have something to start from. Mr. Jacques thought it would provide them something they could adopt in

the next step.

Mr. Carlson thought the committee was going to tell them a code was needed and the committee wanted to help

implement it. Mr. Gales thought they needed to be careful and not leave them in a position where they say now what.

Mr. Carlson said the committee was saying they were willing to work with them through the implementation. Mr.

Jacques thought they needed to tell them this was how we think about going forward and deciding the implementation.

Mr. Carlson didn’t think the committee could tell the Commission that. Until they agreed that a code was needed, then

they could work on the implementation. They could turn that down. They could have their committee look into it or a

different committee to look into implementation. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. They didn’t ask the committee to

tell them how to do it. They asked if it was needed.

Mr. Ramsey asked if there was a consensus that a building code was needed in the unincorporated areas of Shawnee

County. That was the bottom line. He asked if a vote was needed. For the most part everyone was in agreement. Mr.

Beagle said that was where the SWOT Analysis came in. It helped to explain and answer that question. Mr. McNorton

had thought about the SWOT Analysis and based on the lack of interest from the public and to some degree the

construction industry, the threat really wasn’t very big. Mr. Dultmeier thought the public had a lack of interest until

something went wrong with their house.

Mr. McNorton ran across the same thing with the ambulance advisory. He chaired the RFP committee for the new

contract. They had four public hearings and no one showed up. They received a total of 15 comments online and they

were all from firefighters.

Mr. Dultmeier asked Mr. Carlson if he had been through this process before. Mr. Carlson said he had. Mr. Dultmeier

said it wasn’t approved and they did all that work for nothing. Mr. Carlson agreed. Mr. Dultmeier said this was a slower

process. Mr. Carlson said there was a different group to work with.

Mr. Gales suggested taking into consideration the lack of public interest for or against. In reality it was a lack of concern

amongst those that might be impacted that were in the profession. The reality of it was it put a little bit bigger obligation

on the committee to provide some additional context with the recommendation. It could be a series of observations. They

could all provide comments which could be concerns or recommendations. They would have no weight other than it

made the Commission wiser and they would have some guidelines by which they could move forward either with their

committee or another group. They would be providing them with a summary of what they needed to keep in mind as they

proceeded with adopting a code if that was what they wished to do. Mr. Beagle said it could be viewed as considerations

for their benefit. Mr. Carlson offered the suggestion of as a transition step it might be easier to work with the City since it

would be more economical.

Mr. Beagle said the other thing was by providing considerations they didn’t necessarily step on the toes of the future

committee. Mr. Gales said they may come up with a better solution but at least they would be giving them something to

start their thinking process. They could at least start with an educated input that they could proceed with the next group or

come back to the committee to continue working on it.

Mr. Watson thought Mr. Beagle did a good job of breaking out the SWOT Analysis with the strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe it needed to be beefed up. The items made sense to him. He said he had provided a dissent. It wasn’t so much the

dissent as he didn’t think it was necessary for the reasons he articulated. The people don’t want it. The trades don’t want

it. As a taxpayer he didn’t want to see the money wasted. His only notes were on the conclusion. The conclusion didn’t

of 6

include what he thought. He thought he was the minority of one and thought it would be important to include that opinion

in the report.

Mr. Dultmeier said the majority of the trades people who showed up were in favor. Mr. Watson said Mr. Beagle had

included the numbers in the recommendation. He thought the information was there and Mr. Beagle did an excellent job.

At this point, they needed to take a vote or figure out what the recommendation would be. He didn’t have a lot of issue

with the way it was written.

Mr. Dultmeier said the public didn’t seem to be interested. As he dealt with people and they found something wrong with

a house, one of the first things they asked was what does the code say. He believed he stood right in line with the code, so

it worked for both parties. The public was not concerned.

Mr. Ramsey asked Mr. Dultmeier if he ever thought the public just thought there was a code and they were automatically

building to it. They had both built in and outside the city limits. Even in the city, it wasn’t questioned. They just wanted

the house built. When he really started quizzing people, they responded that they assumed the code applied everywhere.

When you get the people out in the County to look at it, they look stunned. Mr. Dultmeier said most of them didn’t

realize that. Mr. Gales was also surprised there was no building code. He knew there wasn’t much enforcement. He just

didn’t realize there wasn’t anything to enforce.

Mr. Gales asked Mr. Jacques if they could potentially complete everything and forego the next meeting. Mr. Jacques

strongly encouraged those who had an opinion to express that before the County Commission. He said, from an overall

perspective, the Planning Department was moving forward with a proposal for a Comprehensive Plan. The Commission

would be deciding what they were going to do and where the priority was. He thought Mr. Watson’s comments may hit

home. If no one cared, why were they doing this? He didn’t think the numbers weren’t necessarily representative.

Mr. Ramsey said the meeting with the trades around ten people showed up. Others were like well whatever. He has

talked to them and they responded with oh just do whatever. Mr. Beagle said he struggled with the numbers. Mr. Ramsey

said they all seemed to be so complacent.

Mr. Faulkner said the building codes changed all the time. You had to be out in front of a situation. Because no one came

didn’t mean they didn’t care. The codes changed because generally something drastic happened. Or technology changed.

If something drastic happened, all the people who didn’t come to the meetings would be the first ones to the County

Commission meeting asking why there wasn’t codes. People showed up when something occurred. He wouldn’t put

much stock in the fact that people didn’t show up. He would put more stock in that they didn’t know. They were trying

to get something done before that happened.

Mr. McNorton spent a lot of time in Greensburg after the tornado. FEMA wasn’t paying anyone until a code got put in

place. The same thing would happen here.

Mr. Gales suggested, respecting that not everyone was in agreement, coming up with a summary statement that was the de

facto statement that was their recommendation. He wanted to make sure they acknowledged if everyone was agreeable to

listing the committee members to sign onto a statement and respectfully acknowledge anyone who didn’t in offering a

dissenting opinion. He thought in the next week if those that wanted to make a statement could acknowledge an item in

particular on the SWOT Analysis or a general statement. It would be a statement that each member would prepare with

their name. It could be their personal opinion about some aspect of it or recommendation. It would provide an

opportunity for each of them to have an individual statement and an official dissent. They could refer to anything in

particular. They wouldn’t have to get into a whole lot of depth. They didn’t have to agree on any individual

recommendations. It would indicate the number of people who were in favor and the number who weren’t and include an

opinion as to why not. It would be their official document they presented with what was already summarized. Anyone

who wanted to add an individual statement could put that not as necessarily an approval or dissent but as a

recommendation. Any suggestions to move forward if a code was adopted could be added as a supplement or an appendix

item. It might simplify the process and give Mr. Beagle the ability to have a collection of personal, professional opinions

that were attached. The Commission would get their general acknowledgement of what was asked of them that provided

the committee’s recommendation. He didn’t want them to spend more time than they needed to if they felt like they’ve

covered everything. It was a good point that the SWOT Analysis spoke for itself. But there was some extrapolation that

needed to come out of that. It was very abbreviated. It would give an individual an opportunity to provide a suggestion or

recommendation.

of 6

Mr. Watson proposed adopting the memorandum as drafted with one revision on page 6 in the Findings and

Recommendations. It was duplicative of language on page 9 under Consensus Recommendations. He suggested to

combine those two under a single point to offer the committee’s recommendations. As he read the proposal it indicated

the consensus of the Exploratory Committee that Shawnee County should adopt the building code for the unincorporated

area. That was the question that was asked and it was the answer that was given. He proposed they include either a

singular dissent or multiple different dissents. It was his opinion as a member of the committee that it shouldn’t be

adopted and his document listed those reasons. He proposed to attach the opinions that offered supplemental opinions

from various committee members. The Commission would get the answer they asked for. They would get the pro

opinion and the negative opinion. If they wanted to read deeper, they could read the individual comments. Mr. Gales said

he concurred with Mr. Watson. Mr. McNorton asked if he should second that.

Mr. Watson asked if they agreed that those two areas were duplicative. When he read it, he thought they were answering

the same question. He suggested having it only in one place. He thought it was very succinct. He wanted to see the

negative. He could see including the opinions of all the committee members.

Mr. McNorton seconded the motion. Mr. Jacques said there was a motion and a second. Mr. Gales asked if there was

anything they were missing before they voted on it.

Mr. McNorton said what was proposed for them to complete by the County Commission, they probably had done more

than was asked. It was a simple question. Not necessarily a simple answer. It was going to get more complicated as it

moved forward. Mr. Carlson suggested they tell them that. This wasn’t the answer. It was just the start.

Mr. Jacques thought that was what he was talking about in asking what the next step would be. If the Commissioners

agreed to adopt a building code, they would need to provide direction as to what to do next. An implementation board

would need to be set up and what would their parameters be. The problem was the Commission might say it was great but

then suddenly ask what they were going to do.

Mr. Gales asked if they defer to the supplemental comments of the individual members for recommendations on how to

move forward if that was there individual opinions. Should they not accept to move forward, they had Mr. Watson’s

opinion. If he added supplemental information on what he recommends happen from here forward if they weren’t. They

could simply defer to the individual input. Unless as a committee they wanted to officially say if they adopted it, the

committee provides suggestions to move forward. A point was made to give them the recommendation and step back and

let them mull through it.

Mr. Ramsey said based on what Mr. Beagle said that was all the Commission was asking for. Mr. Carlson thought that

was what they needed to do. Mr. Watson said it would also gave them an opportunity to express their individual

comments.

Mr. Carlson said when the item went before the Commission that it would be important for the committee members to be

present to answer questions. Mr. Ramsey said if there was a question, the members could be there to answer them. They

needed to be there whether they were to support their recommendation for or against. Mr. Jacques said if they showed up,

the item wouldn’t get tabled and they would get a decision. Mr. Ramsey thought they wanted to see who showed up to

support the recommendation they made. Mr. Jacques said if they decided not to do it that was fine. Mr. Gales said it

would seem that it wasn’t important to the committee if they weren’t there to support whatever decision they made.

Mr. Campbell said the Commission had asked them as a committee. He struggled with 15 different opinions after that

answer. They didn’t ask them individually. They asked if they should or shouldn’t. The realities were there were aspects

that he didn’t like and if one was needed. Unless there was someone else on the committee that said for this reason I just

don’t think we need one. Mr. Watson said he articulated that. Maybe they simplify the answer with the exception of one

member. The majority had one opinion and the one member had theirs.

Mr. Gales asked if he was saying that no one should submit additional comments that could be included as an appendix.

Mr. Campbell was going back to the need to be there. Mr. Gales didn’t disagree. He thought it wasn’t a bad idea for the

expertise in the room to be given the opportunity if they felt it was necessary to supplement any recommendation or data

that was included as part of their report with a personal statement that would basically support their opinion. It would

of 6

give Mr. Campbell the opportunity to put his statement in writing. Mr. Ramsey said it didn’t mean that they had to write

something. Mr. Gales said it was up to each member. Mr. Campbell said it just seemed like less was more.

Mr. Beagle asked for clarification on the motion since Mr. Watson had moved to recommend approval subject to removal

of the first sentence on page 6 under Exploratory Committee Findings and Recommendation. He asked Mr. Watson if he

wanted that sentence taken out. Mr. Watson wanted to only have one. It seemed like it was duplicative of page 9.

Mr. Beagle didn’t disagree. Mr. Watson proposed to consolidate the two into a single paragraph whether it was on page 6

or on page 9. He didn’t care. Mr. Beagle said the Consensus Recommendation was the last paragraph under Exploratory

Committee Findings and Recommendations. It started on page 6 and ended on page 9 under that heading. Mr. Watson

said that probably threw him off. The suggestion was made to clean it up. Mr. Beagle said it was the committee’s report.

Mr. Gales supported Mr. Watson’s observation. He knew it had been seconded. If they were conversing about it he

thought it was unnecessary to come in at the end of the follow-up data and basically state what you stated at the

beginning. If anything maybe just simply highlight it as the recommendation of the committee and include right below

Mr. Watson’s dissent. Then include the summary of all the reasons that were used which what was already compiled.

Mr. Beagle asked if there would be a consensus recommendation on page 9 and just absorb that back up. Everyone

agreed. Mr. Beagle asked if the motion and second also included the submission of individual statements in the appendix.

All agreed.

Mr. Faulkner didn’t agree with taking the language out. He thought it needed to be said twice. He was voting to leave it

in twice. Mr. Ramsey said it was basically beginning and closing statements.

There was a question as to the motion and the second. Discussion followed. Mr. Gales said if Mr. McNorton withdrew

his initial second for purpose of calling the question. Mr. Watson’s motion was to remove the duplicative

recommendation and to allow appendixes and adopt the report subject to the stated changes. Mr. Beagle asked if the

motion included the submission of appendixes. Mr. Watson agreed. Mr. Gales seconded the motion.

Mr. Jacques asked for a vote by a show of hands. With a vote of 2-7-0, the recommendation as amended was

Disapproved. Two members (Neil Carlson, Dave Watson) voted in favor. Seven members (Charlie Campbell, Scott

Gales, Harold Ramsey, Karl McNorton, Chuck Dultmeier, Richard Faulkner, Brian Jacques) voted against.

Mr. Faulkner moved to adopt the document as written along with the appendix to add additional information, seconded by

Mr. Ramsey. Mr. Jacques asked if it would include Mr. Watson’s dissent. Mr. Gales amended the motion to include the

dissent as part of the basic language right under the Exploratory Committee Findings and Recommendation so it would

include the affirmative and dissent together. Mr. Beagle offered to add it in on page 6 or as part of the last paragraph on

page 9. Mr. Gales said it would be more representative of its content to be on page 6 after the initial statement.

Mr. Watson agreed. Mr. Jacques asked if everyone was in agreement to amend the motion. Everyone agreed.

With no further discussion, Mr. Jacques requested a roll call vote was requested on the motion as amended. With a vote

of 7-2-0, the recommendation with the revised changes was Approved.

Mr. Jacques suggested some time be provided so members could send in their statement. Mr. Beagle requested their

individual comments be sent to him by Tuesday, November 24, so he could incorporate those changes and send it back

out to the committee for final review. He would then put it on the Commission Agenda for consideration in the first or

second week of December.

Mr. Gales asked if they would need to meet on Monday, November 30. Through discussion it was determined they did

not need to meet. Mr. Beagle said he would send them a copy of the agenda item and the date and time it would be

considered by the County Commission.

5. Adjournment


EExxhhiibbiitt CC RReessoouurrccee MMaatteerriiaallss

Resource Material

The following resource materials were provided to the Building Code Exploratory Committee over the course of their deliberations. International Code Council (ICC)

1. International Code Council Government Relations Code Adoption Toolkit.

2. Building Codes: Why Do We Need Them (attached), PowerPoint Presentation to the Building Code Exploratory Committee on September 2, 2015, by Timothy Schmitz, Regional Manager, State & Governmental Relations, International Code Council.

3. International Code County Fact Sheet.

4. Why We Adopted the “International Building Code” (IBC) and Why We Continue to Adopt the Revisions.

Miscellaneous Resources

1. Informed Decisions on Catastrophic Risk: Quantifying the Role of Effective and well-Enforced Building Codes in Reducing Natural Disaster Property Losses, Issue Brief, Fall 2013, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.

2. Convective Storm Vulnerability: Quantifying the Role of Effective and Well-Enforced Building Codes in Minimizing Missouri Hail Property Damage, Jeffrey Czajkowski and Kevin Simmons, November 2013, Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania.

3. The Value of Building Codes, Carolyn A. Dehring, Summer 2006, University of Georgia.

4. The Value and Impact of Building Codes, Ellen Vaughan and Jim Turner.

Federal Alliance for Safe Homes

1. Building Codes: The Foundation for Resilience, Leslie Chapman-Henderson and Audrey K. Rierson, May 1, 2014, Federal Alliance for Safe Homes.

2. Disaster Resilience Rising Means the Time is Right, Leslie Chapman-Henderson and Audrey K. Rierson, August 12, 2015, Federal Alliance for Safe Homes.

Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO)

1. Building Code Enforcement Protects Your Citizens Every Day: Maximize Your Community’s Resilience with ISO’s BCEGS Program, Insurance Services Office, Inc.

https://www.iccsafe.org/gr/Documents/AdoptionToolkit/toolkit.pdf

http://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/fact-sheet.pdf

http://www.cameron-mo.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/735

http://www.cameron-mo.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/735

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WRCib2013e_Hail_BCEGS.pdf

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WRCib2013e_Hail_BCEGS.pdf

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WP2013-08_Building-Codes-in-MO.pdf

http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/library/WP2013-08_Building-Codes-in-MO.pdf

http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/files/bldg_codes.pdf

http://www.eesi.org/files/Value-and-Impact-of-Building-Codes.pdf

http://www.flash.org/building-codes.pdf

http://www.flash.org/disasterresiliencerising.pdf

http://www.verisk.com/cp-v/resources/bcegs-classification.pdf

http://www.verisk.com/cp-v/resources/bcegs-classification.pdf

2. The Value of Building Codes to Insurers and Communities, Ralph Dorio, October 10, 2010, Verisk Analytics.

3. Building Code Effectiveness Grading System (BCEGS) website, Insurance Services Office, Inc.

http://www.verisk.com/cp/articles/the-value-of-building-codes-to-insurers-and-communities-verisk-commercial-property.html

https://www.isomitigation.com/index.php/bcegs

Building Codes:

Why Do We Need Them?

Shawnee County, Kansas

What is a "model code"?

A written set of regulations that provide the

means for exercising reasonable control over

construction.

Available for adoption by cities, counties, states

or countries with such changes as may be

desirable or legal for local needs.

2

What is a "building code"?

A legal document that regulates the

construction of new and existing structures and

buildings.

Building codes specify the minimum design

and construction requirements to safeguard

the health, safety, and welfare of both building

occupants and the general public.

Also regulates the installation of fixtures,

equipment and accessories.

3

History of building codes

Building codes are not a product of modern

civilization.

Building codes evolved from the past.

The earliest known written code of law, written in

2200 BC is the code of Hammurabi, king of the

Babylonian Empire.

Exact requirements for construction not given.

The code assesses penalties if the building is not

properly constructed.

4

A brief history – why do we have building

codes?

New York, April 1836 San Francisco – April, 1906

Iroquois Theater, Chicago, 1903

605 Fatalities Ohio State Penitentiary, April 1930

322 Fatalities 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Fire_of_the_City_of_New_York_Dec_16_1835.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IroquoisTheater.jpg

A Brief History

Building codes were developed in response to great disasters: Urban conflagrations, earthquakes and hurricanes

Single building fires

That everyone regarded as unacceptable

The first codes were developed by individual major cities with help from: The local business community

The local fire department

The local design community

Insurance companies

Product manufacturers

6

The International Code Council (ICC): A non-profit professional association,

develops and updates model building codes called “I-Codes” every three years.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Collaborates with ICC,

standards groups, and engineering/construction industry to propose and gain

adoption of numerous disaster-resistant provisions for earthquake, wind, and

flood hazards in the Nation’s model building codes and standards. FEMA also

participates in various codes and standards committees to share lessons learned

from previous disasters and lend insight to code-related studies. FEMA also

works with communities to support local adoption efforts (i.e. training, technical

assistance, etc.)

Specialized professional organizations: American Society of Engineers

(ASCE), American Institute of Architects (AIA) and others help develop technical

standards that are referenced by the I-Codes

Federal, States and local authorities Adopt the I-Codes and incorporate them

into their building and community development practices

Who Develops The Codes:

7

What are the different I-Codes?

International Building Code (IBC):

Applies to almost all types of new buildings,

except single-family residential properties.

International Residential Code (IRC):

Applies to new one- and two-family

dwellings and townhouses of not more than

three stories in height.

International Existing Building Code

(IEBC): Applies to the alteration, repair,

addition, or change in occupancy of existing

structures.

8

Who Enforces the Codes:

Adoption and Enforcement: States and local jurisdictions are

responsible for adopting the I-Codes and its disaster resistant

provisions into local building and community development decisions.

Code Official: The building code official is the individual tasked with

enforcing all local building code standards, reviewing permit

applications, and approving building permits. Your local code official

is there to help you make your project a success and avoid potential

problems that could cost you time and money.

Building Inspector: The building inspector is the individual tasked

with all on-site inspections during the construction process to ensure

the work being completed conforms to the parameters outlined in

the permit, local codes, City/County approved plans, etc.

9

Why?

Free technical support to governmental members

Consistent requirements facilitate trade and keep construction product prices low

Eliminates need for expensive local technical development; assures state of the art safety; regular updates to keep up with technology

State and local gov’t adopt MODEL codes, as

do federal agencies, like DOD & DOS

10

Protect the Public’s Health,

Safety and Welfare

Buildings that mitigate hazards are achieved

through: Proper design

Proper construction practices

Code administration programs for compliance

Homes and businesses are substantial

investments that are jeopardized through

incomplete or nonexistent code enforcement.

11

Keep Construction Cost Down

Codes enhance economic development thru the

utilization of state-of-the art technology in materials

research, design and construction practices, and

risks/hazards to the public in buildings and structures.

Codes provide uniformity of requirements in the

construction industry.

Building codes minimize long term costs - when disaster

strikes, the costs associated with rebuilding, lost

productivity, human life - are minimized.

12

Provide Consistent Minimum

Standards in Construction

Codes establish rational and consistent

minimum requirements.

Requirements ensure a practical balance

between reasonable safety and cost to protect

life and property.

Inspection during construction is the best way to

verify code compliance.

13

Building Code and Proper Enforcement

Protect your Investment

Standards referenced in the building codes are

based on sound science, best practices, and

lessons learned from disasters.

Proper adoption and enforcement of the codes

ensures durable buildings, protecting occupant

safety and property investments.

Protection of the community’s tax base.

14

What is the Code Development

Process (CDP)?

The Code Development Process is a democratic

public hearing and revision procedure which

allows all interested parties the opportunity to

propose changes and testify regarding change

proposals.

15

ICC Code Development Process

16

Purpose of a Code Change

Address health, safety and welfare issues.

Reflect new technology.

Delete out-of-date technology.

Refine language and content by either: Adding new requirement(s)

Deleting current requirement(s)

17

cdp ACCESS in 2015 - IgCC

On-line collaboration

Opportunity to “discuss” code change and public

comment submittals

Opportunity to compare notes relative to CAH and

PCH preparation

On-line code change and public comment

submittal

Codes compiled in dBase

Develop code change/public comment and submit on

line

18

cdp ACCESS in 2015 - IgCC

Remote voting

On assembly motions made at the Committee Action

Hearings. Vote to occur following the hearings. All

ICC members.

On Public Comment Hearings outcome. Vote to occur

following the hearings. Governmental members only.

For more information on cdp ACCESS go to the

following link:

http://www.iccsafe.org/cdpACCESS

19

http://www.iccsafe.org/cs/cdpACCESS/Pages/default.aspx

ICC Code Development Process

Code Changes Submitted

Code Changes Posted

Public Hearings Results Posted

Public Hearings

Public Comments Sought on Public Hearings Results

Public Comments Posted

Final Action Hearing

Final Action Hearing Results Posted

Publication

20

Insurance Information Institute

Total hurricane-related risk insured by the government has

increased 15-fold since 1990 to $885 billion.

Incorporating measures that make buildings and infrastructure

more resilient will make communities less vulnerable and

provide long-term savings for taxpayers, households and

insurers.

A building or home that meets the most current code will

withstand the forces of nature better than homes built to older

codes.

Storm and earthquake damage is extremely expensive and, to

a large extent, avoidable through cost-effective

enhancements at the time of construction and careful

construction practices.

21

Insurance Institute for Business

& Home Safety (IBHS)

Hurricane Andrew, caused more than $20

billion in insured damage,

would have been reduced by 50 percent for

residential properties and by 40 percent for

commercial properties if they were built in

accordance with Florida’s 2004 statewide

building code.

Hurricane Charley in 2004

Conformance to current building codes reduced the

severity of losses by 42 percent and loss frequency

by 60 percent.

22

FEMA

A 2005 study funded by FEMA and conducted by

the National Institute of Building Sciences’ Multi-

hazard Mitigation Council found that every dollar

spent on mitigation would save four dollars in

losses.

This study is currently being updated

23

Homeland Security Report

“Including Building Codes in the National Flood

Insurance Program” Executive Summary states,

“Insurance losses would be reduced for the properties

required to comply with building codes because those

properties would sustain less damage. The reduction of

losses would lower actuarially rated insurance premiums

for those structures, which in turn would make insurance

more affordable and attract a broader participant pool,

further enhancing soundness and reducing subsidy needs

of the NFIP.

24

Advantages - Insurance

Individuals building to at- or above-code standards often receive discounts on fire, property owners, renters, and flood insurance premiums. (ISO)

Citizens whose communities go above the minimum floodplain management standards required by the National Flood Insurance Program’s Community Rating System (NFIP CRS) all receive reduced flood insurance rates.

Everyone benefits when money is saved and losses are avoided.

25

Recent Trends and Changes in

Building Codes

Code Advances Save Lives

26

Both the IRC and the IBC,

have specific provisions to

make buildings less vulnerable,

and sustain less damage, in

the event of a fire, flood,

earthquake, or windstorm.

The model codes are revised

every three years, and reflect

experience and research from

events such as hurricanes

including Andrew and Katrina,

the WTC collapse, earthquakes

including Loma Prieta and

Northridge , etc.

Fire, Flooding, Seismic, Tornado & Terror events are all

addressed by specific code sections

27


IRC flood provisions:

Updated flood maps

and requirements for

flood enclosures

(vents) and improved

roof drainage

requirements,

28


2008 ICC/NSSA 500:

This standard provides

minimum design and

construction

requirements for storm

shelters that provide a

safe refuge from storms

that produce high winds,

hurricanes, and

tornadoes.

29


2009 IFC Section 903.2.4:

Automatic sprinkler systems

are now required in

occupancies where

upholstered furniture or

mattresses are:

Manufactured (Group F-1)

Stored (Group S-1)

Displayed (Group M)

30

31

Code Advances Change Lives

Safety is our Expectation in Schools

32

Safety is our Expectation When We Travel

33

Safety is our Expectation Where We Live

34