Topeka attorney presents ordinance to let courts prosecute landlords even after voluntary compliance; committee to consider in May

City legal staff presented a draft ordinance to the Topeka City Public Health and Safety Committee on April 16 intended to create a legal basis for continuing criminal prosecution of landlords for property maintenance code violations even after the landlord brings a unit into compliance.

The ordinance text presented to the committee includes a policy statement and an amendment to municipal practice: "a prosecutor shall not dismiss the case, solely based off voluntary compliance if the person is a landlord as defined in code," the presenting attorney said. The proposed language aims to differentiate landlords from other code respondents so prosecutors can pursue criminal misdemeanor charges and fines when landlords do not act promptly to keep rental units habitable.

City staff and prosecutors explained the existing enforcement tracks. Administrative abatement and associated fees are handled through an administrative process; criminal fines require a municipal court conviction. The presenting attorney said the ordinance addresses a perceived cycle in which some landlords (the attorney described them as a different classification than low-income homeowners) took advantage of the system by waiting to fix violations until after a criminal referral, then securing a voluntary dismissal and paying only court costs. "You have to have a conviction to go ahead and proceed," the attorney said, describing why the ordinance would create a statutory basis to continue prosecution for landlords.

Committee members asked how the change might affect existing housing programs and enforcement partnerships. Council members raised specific enforcement examples and asked whether continued prosecution could influence landlords' access to state programs (discussants referenced Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, often abbreviated LIHTC) and whether criminal fines would pressure repeat offenders; attorneys said the ordinance would make it easier to establish repeat-offender proceedings and to impose criminal penalties where prosecutors secure convictions. The committee discussed distinctions between life-safety violations and cosmetic issues and noted the city recently centralized code enforcement and prosecution coordination to expedite life-safety cases.

The committee did not adopt the ordinance at the April meeting. Chair Karen Hiller asked that the draft be placed on the committee's May agenda for further consideration; the committee agreed. Staff said the draft contains "whereas" clauses establishing public policy reasons for differential treatment of landlords; codification staff will advise on which history clauses will remain in codified code. The city attorney offered to answer interim questions and provide additional materials before May.

No formal vote on the ordinance occurred April 16; committee members directed staff to return the item for consideration and possible action in May.