Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haysville council waives portion of $2,500 abatement bill after new homeowner says notice went to prior owner
Summary
A new Haysville homeowner told the City Council he did not receive a formal notice of violation before the city contracted an abatement at his property. Council voted to waive $1,500 of an approximately $2,500 abatement bill.
A newly arrived Haysville homeowner told the City Council on Aug. 11 that his property was abated by a city-contracted contractor without his receiving the formal notice of violation he says is required, and the council voted to waive $1,500 of an approximately $2,500 abatement bill.
Reid Hopkins, who said he purchased the house at 6415 South Keystone Street on June 17, said he and his fiancée were performing renovations and temporarily stored trim and other materials under a covered front porch and put debris at the curb. He told the council he received a “community improvement request” door hanger on June 26 and moved items to the backyard, but later learned the administrative letter had been mailed to the previous owner because county GIS had not yet updated the ownership record.
“I’m not here to place blame or cause trouble. I’m just asking for a fair resolution as I don’t see it’s fit for us to pay that bill when we were not properly informed,” Hopkins said.
City staff said the department’s outreach included a door hanger and that the written administrative notice had been mailed to the prior owner because Sedgwick County GIS had not updated the record. Staff cited the city code, “article 8 section 407,” as listing allowable methods of notice, including certified mail, door hangers, posting on the property and first-class mail. Staff said the door hanger warns that failure to correct violations may lead to abatement and costs being charged to the property owner.
Council members pressed staff and Hopkins about the timeline and facts: Hopkins said the door hanger arrived on June 26, a contractor performed abatement on or about July 11, and the homeowner only received an abatement invoice the previous Monday for roughly $2,500. Hopkins also said some of the trim removed during abatement was material he planned to reuse and asked whether the city could reimburse that value instead of charging him the abatement.
Several council members said the city followed its written procedures but acknowledged the mailing to the previous owner created an unfair outcome for Hopkins. Councilman Cron (mover) made a motion to waive $1,500 of the abatement bill; the motion carried.
The council did not specify in the meeting record a formal reimbursement amount for the trim that Hopkins said was discarded. Staff indicated follow-up would be possible and advised residents to contact relevant departments proactively when they are renovating.
The council’s action was limited to the waiver: it did not reverse the abatement or order a separate refund of specific removed items during the meeting.
Votes at the Aug. 11 meeting show the waiver motion carried by council majority; the motion was recorded as approved by the council. The council also encouraged Hopkins to use city public works services for future disposal and welcomed him to the community.
