Topeka committee scrutinizes fines, fees and criminal charges in proposed property maintenance code

The City of Topeka Public Health & Safety Committee spent the majority of its Oct. 15 work session reviewing how fines, fees and criminal charges are assessed and collected under the property maintenance code as part of the IPMC update.

Nicole (staff) outlined two enforcement streams: administrative penalties and criminal charges. On the administrative side she summarized the existing fee schedule and abatement charges: a $100 penalty for a first administrative violation and $200 for a repeat, with additional administrative fees and abatement costs that can be placed on property tax liens or sent to collections. She told the committee that, historically, several administrative fees were not consistently applied—particularly for interior or rental cases—because the case-management system did not have those fees built in during system transitions.

Prosecutor Kelly Trussell told the committee that criminal prosecution is resource intensive but provides additional remedies — such as injunctions — that can be effective against landlords who repeatedly fail to remedy life‑safety violations. Trussell said she consolidated all criminal code prosecutions under a single point of contact to improve consistency. She also described a recent change: a default‑judgment ordinance that allows the city to obtain convictions when LLCs do not appear in court. "Up until we passed that ordinance, we had no teeth to do anything to any entities," she said; after the change, default judgments produced a jump in convictions, most concentrated against a small number of non‑appearing LLCs.

Community advocates and committee members pressed for better collection strategies and tools targeted at high-volume offenders. Daniel, representing a tenant coalition, described a tenant‑built database documenting LLC ownership, eviction history and repeated cases at specific apartment complexes. He urged a phased, targeted rental registry or registration approach that includes a resident‑agent requirement (a local agent who can accept notices and be held accountable) and built-in tenant protections to prevent retaliation.

Committee members discussed practical responses including: refining the IPMC timeline for occupied versus vacant units, requiring reinspection before re-occupancy when a property has an open case, creating reinspection fees to offset city costs, and clarifying when staff should pursue criminal charges versus administrative penalties. Several members asked staff for clearer metrics on outstanding fines and collections for multifamily properties and whether contracted collection processes should be revised.

Why it matters: Committee members said the goal of either enforcement stream is the same — safe, habitable housing — but they differ in remedies, administrative burden and incentives for landlords. The committee signaled a desire for targeted tools against repeat corporate offenders while protecting tenants and mom‑and‑pop landlords through phased implementation and tenant‑protection language.

Next steps: Staff and prosecution will work to provide more granular collection data (particularly for multifamily rentals), draft ordinance language for reinspection/registration options and continue IPMC refinement. The committee plans to take additional input and resume discussion at its November meeting.

Provenance: This article is based on presentations and committee discussion at the Oct. 15 Public Health & Safety Committee meeting, including staff descriptions of administrative fees, prosecutor Trussell’s explanation of criminal remedies and Daniel’s tenant‑coalition presentation.