Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Hutchinson council approves condemnation resolutions for several unsafe commercial buildings, tables others for follow-up

August 05, 2025 | Hutchinson City, Reno County, Kansas


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Hutchinson council approves condemnation resolutions for several unsafe commercial buildings, tables others for follow-up
The Hutchinson City Council on Aug. 5 held a public hearing on the condition of multiple commercial structures across the city and approved resolutions declaring several of them unsafe and dangerous, authorizing orders to repair or demolish the affected properties and setting bonds where required.

City Building Official Jason Liddy opened the hearing with staff findings that each listed structure showed property-maintenance or structural violations that could threaten public safety. Liddy and other staff showed exterior photos and summarized inspections and emergency responses going back to 2019. He recommended council adopt individual resolutions under Chapter 21, Article 7, of the Hutchinson City Code to compel repairs or allow the city to remove structures if owners do not comply.

The council approved condemnation resolutions for 806 North Plum Street; 22 West Fifth Avenue; 211 East Fourth Avenue; and 411 South Main Street. For several other properties — including 401 and 405 South Main Street and multiple addresses on East Fourth and North Jackson — council either removed a property from the list for further tracking or postponed formal action to an October hearing to allow owners time to respond, pursue permits or demonstrate progress. Staff said the postponements are intended to preserve due process while keeping the enforcement process active.

Why it matters: The resolutions give the city legal authority to require owners to repair or demolish buildings that staff has determined are unsafe. The actions also attach any code violations and remediation orders to the property so the obligations follow a future buyer, staff said.

What staff said: Liddy described common issues: partial roof failure, waving exterior walls, loose or falling brick, boarded or broken windows, missing basic utilities and other property-maintenance violations. He told council estimated demolition bonds for the properties range from roughly $50,000 to more than $300,000 depending on the size and complexity of the structure; the bond, when required, would be set by the officer in charge and due at the next hearing (staff recommended a 60‑day follow-up schedule).

Owner responses and due-process claims: Owners and their representatives spoke on several properties. Attorney Ed Robinson, representing the Gumbles (owners of 401 and 405 South Main), told council his clients had not been given specific code narratives until the afternoon of Aug. 5 and said their clients still did not understand what code sections were alleged to be violated. Robinson and the owners asked for clearer, itemized notices so they could obtain design professionals’ reports and make repairs instead of facing an immediate demolition path. Liddy and other staff said they had met with the owners, acknowledged the timing of some notices could have been earlier and reminded council the condemnation procedure is intended to allow either owner abatement or city abatement after due process.

Council response and next steps: Several council members said they wanted to give willing owners time to show progress; others stressed the need to protect public safety and neighboring properties. For properties where staff documented imminent safety hazards and no owner contact, council approved the resolutions. Where owners showed a willingness to pursue repairs, council set follow-up reviews in 60 days (the next likely meeting date staff cited was Oct. 7, 2025).

Votes and immediate outcomes (summary): 806 North Plum Street — resolution approved; estimated bond $185,000. 22 West Fifth Avenue (all buildings on the parcel) — resolution approved; estimated bond $310,000. 211 East Fourth Avenue — resolution approved; demolition permit already in place and staff will monitor; estimated bond $216,000. 411 South Main Street — resolution approved; estimated bond $160,000. 401 and 405 South Main Street (same owner) — hearing held; council postponed final action and rescheduled the condemnation resolution for Oct. 7, 2025, and staff will set separate bond amounts; staff listed a combined estimated bond of $289,000 for the pair. 2100 North Jackson Street and 3001 East Fourth Avenue — council held the public hearing and agreed to revisit each at the Oct. 7, 2025 meeting rather than approve immediate city demolition. 1321 East Fourth Avenue — staff and council reported an active building permit and construction work; council removed the property from the imminent-condemnation list for now and will continue to monitor progress.

Financial and legal notes: Liddy told council that if an owner fails to abate and the city proceeds with demolition, the city would seek payment from owners. If unpaid, demolition costs would become a special assessment on the property tax bill. Staff emphasized bonding can be a cash bond, letter of credit or another financial instrument acceptable to the city. Liddy also reminded council that properties with delinquent taxes that later transfer ownership remain subject to the condemnation orders attached to the property.

What to expect: For properties where council approved resolutions, staff will set bond amounts and timelines and return to council per the schedule. For properties deferred to Oct. 7, staff and owners will continue to exchange documentation and inspect work; city staff said they will treat owner-initiated progress as grounds for reasonable extensions but will bring items back if no adequate progress occurs.

Ending: Council members who emphasized working with willing owners said the city has a history of granting extensions when owners show steady progress; members who prioritized immediate action said the city must protect the public and neighboring properties. Council closed the public hearing and moved to consider individual resolutions in the agenda’s resolution section.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Kansas articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI