Wichita council reviews overhaul of property-maintenance code, asks for hybrid enforcement option

Troy Anderson, assistant city manager, presented a package of proposed changes to Wichita’s property-maintenance rules and enforcement process on June 3, telling the City Council staff proposes adopting the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) and consolidating fragmented language across multiple municipal code titles.

Anderson said the rewrite would be accompanied by new internal policies and software updates, and — assuming systems work as planned — staff’s target is to make the consolidated code effective Jan. 1, 2026, with training and revised procedures completed before the start date. “Our goal is to kind of go live 01/01/2026,” Anderson said.

The package would replace duplicated standards across Title 7, 8, 18 and 20 with a single reference code and several local amendments to keep consistency with the Wichita–Sedgwick County Unified Building and Trade Code. Anderson recommended changes to the court process for property violations, noting the current system often cycles cases through repeated inspections and extensions without abatement.

The most contested choice presented was how to handle prosecution after a Uniform Criminal Citation (UCC) is written. Anderson offered three enforcement approaches: replace environmental court with administrative hearings (least assertive); amend the environmental court ordinance to allow stronger penalties and fewer compliance-only continuances (more assertive); or use a hybrid model in which prosecutors choose administrative hearings for first-time or cooperative parties and send repeat or egregious violators directly to environmental court.

Council members voiced consistent support for an assertive response to habitual violators and urged mechanisms to push repeat offenders into tougher tracks. “I am supportive of the hybrid model if we can... push the repeat offenders towards the more assertive model,” said Council member Johnson. Council member Glasscock and others asked staff to include a pro forma cost analysis comparing the enforcement options and to show per-inspection costs and overall budget impacts.

Anderson said staff will craft internal policy changes to reduce repeated reinspection cycles, including a proposed three-strike approach: an initial inspection and cure period, a second reinspection with a reduced cure period, and, if unresolved, issuance of the UCC and referral to the prosecutor’s office. He described the intent as getting cases into adjudication earlier so enforcement tools can be effective instead of repeating informal extensions.

Council discussion also covered demolition authority for unsafe buildings. The IPMC model authorizes the code official to order demolition; Wichita’s current municipal code requires City Council approval for demolitions. Several council members — including Council members Ballard and Johnson — said they value council review on demolition; others favored faster remedies to reduce neighborhood blight. Anderson told the council he would return options that balance liability, budget constraints and the council’s desire for final oversight.

Members of the public, neighborhood leaders and landlord representatives spoke during public comment. Multiple speakers urged faster action against absentee and out-of-state landlords whose properties sit vacant or repeatedly attract nuisance activity; neighborhood representatives described long-running vacant-lot encampments and fires tied to abandoned properties. Vince Hancock, president of the Atlanta Neighborhood Association, said neighborhoods need better tools to reach out-of-state owners and to prevent decades-long decline.

Rental-owner groups urged workable remedies but opposed an approach that would unduly burden responsible landlords. Pat Daniels, president of Rental Owners, Inc., said the “vast majority” of landlords are responsible and offered industry assistance on policy design.

After roughly two hours of discussion and public comment, the council voted 7–0 to receive and file the presentation and directed staff to refine draft ordinance language, cost estimates, internal policies and reporting metrics for return to council. Council members asked staff to bring the revisions to DABs for community input and to include performance measures covering complaint volumes, case processing time and court outcomes.

Staff said policy items that are related but outside the IPMC scope — such as rental registries, source-of-income protections, landlord “watch lists,” or mandatory local property managers — would be considered separately and would require additional legal review.

Council member Johnson moved that the council receive and file the presentation; the motion passed 7–0.