City attorney: Kansas Supreme Court declines review of challenge to Lawrence source-of-income ordinance; Human Relations Division lists active cases

The Human Relations Advisory Board received an update from the City Attorney’s Office reporting that the Kansas Supreme Court declined to review an appeal brought by a group of landlords challenging the City of Lawrence’s source-of-income ordinance. The decline leaves intact an earlier Court of Appeals decision that had ruled in the city’s favor.

The staff member who read the attorney’s email said: “The bigger update is that we won the challenge to our source of income ordinance.” The email said the city will continue to enforce the protections added for source of income and immigration status under Chapter 10.

The update also provided case-status details. The Human Relations Division has four cases under investigation: one housing complaint tied to an accommodation request for a person with a disability (an elevator that was out of operation); two complaints involving Housing Choice Vouchers (alleged refusal to accept vouchers); and one housing complaint alleging a landlord did not renew a lease because of the tenant’s number of children (familial status). Staff said an additional housing complaint has been drafted and is awaiting a signed complaint before investigation can begin.

The attorney’s email included three complaints that the division will not pursue: a requested accommodation that was not formally requested in time; a report where the rental property was outside the city’s jurisdiction; and a landlord–tenant dispute that did not implicate a protected class under Chapter 10.

The city attorney’s office also told the board it has outreach materials and offered training for commissioners who volunteer to assist with community outreach. Staff said the materials are available on the fourth floor and commended Zach in the City Attorney’s Office for preparing the update.

Board members discussed recent media coverage and whether the commission should prepare a proactive statement if the city contemplates changes to enforcement or policy. Several commissioners sought earlier notification when the city attorney’s office or the city commission contemplates an agenda item that could affect enforcement of Chapter 10; staff described the typical agendas timeline (documents typically finalized with the city clerk by Wednesday for the next Tuesday meeting) and noted that special meetings can be called with electronic consent of commissioners if needed.

The board accepted the update and asked staff to thank the City Attorney’s Office for the report. The board also agreed a draft advisory statement could be prepared for quick use if a relevant city commission agenda item reappears.