Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Inspections Joint Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Topeka fire and property‑maintenance teams cite hundreds of violations in joint apartment inspections
Summary
A yearlong joint inspection effort found hundreds of exterior code and fire‑code violations across dozens of apartment complexes; staff described the program as a learning year and said many repairs remain open.
City of Topeka staff told the committee that a joint inspection effort between the fire department and property‑maintenance unit (PMU) identified hundreds of code violations across dozens of multi‑family buildings in 2024, and that the program highlighted inspection resource gaps and complex remediation timelines.
Property maintenance staff reported that PMU cited 309 exterior/code violations across 32 apartment complexes (38 separate buildings) during the joint inspection visits; staff said 12 of those complexes had reached code‑enforcement milestones (for example, a condemnation order or compliance order) and that 10 cases had been referred to municipal court. PMU also said six of the cases remaining open were sanitation issues tied to trash‑service problems.
The fire department said it inspected a larger set of buildings: 216 apartment buildings with interior exits (the department prioritizes interior‑exit buildings for annual inspection) and cited 667 fire‑code violations. As of the report, staff said 320 of those fire violations had been cleared and about 347 remained open. Fire officials described top problem areas as doors that do not self‑close and latch (76 citations), missing or out‑of‑test‑date extinguishers (51 citations), non‑monitored or untested fire‑alarm systems (45 citations), exterior doors that would not close and latch (42 citations), and doors propped open with stoppers (35 citations).
Inspectors said most joint visits were announced and conducted with complex managers; staff emphasized their approach is not a single pass with a courtesy notice but ongoing engagement. One PMU staff member said: "We want 100% compliance from these apartment managers, so we have to work with them," and described multiple follow‑up meetings to verify repairs.
Staff characterized 2024 as a learning year for the joint program: PMU had one dedicated inspector for much of the year while the fire department had a larger inspector complement, which yielded uneven coverage. Committee members asked for a concise, sharable report for the governing body that highlights the program’s baseline metrics: number of buildings inspected, repeat visits, time from first inspection to final compliance, and remaining open violations.
Officials also discussed the program’s community benefit: joint visits generate tenant reports and help connect residents to code compliance resources. Staff proposed continuing the joint inspections in 2025, refining data collection and determining whether fire inspectors should routinely hand out PMU materials when they visit buildings alone.
No formal policy changes were adopted at the meeting; staff said they will provide a tighter, presentation‑style report to the governing body in the next month.
