Commissioners direct staff to advance 2012 building-code update after debate on storm shelters and inspections

At a Leavenworth County Board of County Commissioners work session, commissioners gave staff direction, 3–2, to proceed toward adopting the 2012 International Residential Code (IRC) and 2012 International Building Code (IBC), though no ordinance was adopted and no effective date was set.

The proposed update would replace the county's currently referenced 2006 codes, expand the set of structures covered by residential code requirements, and add a requirement for affidavits of code compliance on certain commercial projects. Commissioners spent the bulk of the discussion on whether to require tornado-safe rooms for new slab-on-grade subdivisions, and on how to make voluntary code compliance enforceable without creating an inspection department.

County staff told commissioners the board-appointed Building Codes Appeals Committee spent about eight to 10 months reviewing the 2012 IRC and IBC and recommending a set of local amendments. Staff said the main residential changes recommended are: applying code requirements to accessory buildings and decks; exempting agricultural buildings only on parcels of 10 acres or larger; and aligning building-permit thresholds to 200 square feet (the 2012 code threshold) rather than the county's current zoning and subdivision rule of 100 square feet. Staff said single-family homes and accessory dwelling units would require a full set of plans, drawn to scale, but would not require an engineer's stamp unless the building official determined one was necessary.

Kyle, building-codes staff, summarized the committee's work and said, "We went chapter by chapter" to identify and remove contradictions between older code references and the proposed 2012 text. He told the commission that the committee also recommended removal of chapter 13, the energy-efficiency chapter, from the county adoption.

The update would retain a higher threshold for building permits on the residential side and would require construction documents prepared by a registered design professional for commercial projects. On commercial work, staff explained the county intends to require an affidavit of code compliance signed by the original registered design professional in lieu of a local certificate-of-occupancy process the county does not currently operate.

The session included extended discussion about whether the county should require storm shelters in new slab-home subdivisions. Staff pointed to ICC 500 (shelter standards) and FEMA 320 (a FEMA standard for safe rooms) as applicable guidance. Kyle said, "ICC 500 is actually a code requirement and specifies the type of shelter that you have to have with an occupant load as base code criteria," and noted the committee had not proposed a mandatory shelter requirement at this stage. Committee members told commissioners they were generally pro-shelter but opposed a mandatory, countywide requirement because of cost concerns.

Committee members and commissioners provided cost estimates for prefabricated home shelters in the discussion, which the committee said ranged from about $3,800 to $5,000 for a common prefabricated unit; staff estimated that cost would amount to roughly 1 percent of a $300,000 slab home (commissioners corrected an earlier misstatement). Staff also told the commission the committee recommended offering resources and information about shelter options at the time of permitting rather than requiring shelters for all single-family units.

Several commissioners urged a middle path: not forcing shelter installation on every private homeowner but requiring community shelters, basements or other protections when large subdivisions are proposed. Commissioners raised practical concerns about community shelters' long-term maintenance and legal liability for publicly advertised shelter locations that do not meet ICC 500 maintenance or design standards.

On enforcement and inspections, the committee recommended that all townships be subject to county codes and that the county require building inspections; as an interim step the committee suggested third-party inspectors paid by applicants rather than creating a county inspection department immediately. Staff said those third-party inspectors would be paid by the applicant and that adding the 2012 code language would not, in itself, require hiring county inspectors at this time.

Staff described a specific enforcement change for commercial projects: because the county lacks a certificate-of-occupancy program, the proposed code would require an affidavit of code compliance signed by the registered design professional to confirm post-construction conformity when an inspection process is not in place.

Commissioners also discussed legal liability and existing litigation related to the county's current code footprint; county legal staff indicated that questions about the litigation should be addressed in executive session. The committee advised that voluntary compliance without inspections makes adopted codes "ineffective and unreliable," and urged the county to adopt enforcement language that would hold designers and builders accountable.

After discussion, commissioners provided direction for staff to publish the proposed amendments and return with formal adoption documents: the chair announced that the direction carried 3'to'2. No ordinance was adopted at the work session and staff said any actual adoption would come back for a formal vote after the required notice and public-comment steps.

Next steps: staff will prepare the proposed local amendments, incorporate the committee's suggestion to provide permit-time information about storm-shelter options, and publish the draft changes for public review before returning to the commission for formal consideration.