Topeka council reviews demolition process and possible rental registry; public debate centers on landlord accountability and tenant protections

City staff on Nov. 12 presented a detailed update on Topeka’s condemnation and demolition procedures and sought council direction on two potential policy changes: (1) an amendment to strengthen prosecution and fines for non-owner-occupied dwellings, and (2) creating a rental-dwelling license or registry to improve oversight of rental housing.

John Shardine, property maintenance division director, explained the legal difference: condemnation is a status declaring a property unsafe or uninhabitable and allows for repair and due-process appeals; demolition is a permanent physical removal used when a building is structurally unsound, presents imminent danger, or remains unrepaired after condemnation. Shardine said his latest run of the condemnation report (run “on the seventh”) showed about 198 properties on the condemned list, and that the number fluctuates week to week.

Shardine gave historic enforcement numbers to illustrate activity: in 2023 the department logged about 180 investigations and 16 demolitions; in 2024 there were roughly 121 investigations and 15 demolitions. He noted demolition is a last resort and that emergency demolitions arise quickly and can affect annual totals. Shardine also described a demolition threshold used in administrative hearings — structural repairs exceeding about 30% of assessed value often trigger demolition consideration — and emphasized staff prioritizes the most dangerous properties given limited funds.

Kelly Bridal, identified in the transcript as chief of prosecution, outlined a proposed amendment to TMC 8.6.0.07 to reduce prosecutorial discretion to dismiss fines for non-owner-occupied properties after cases reach prosecution. Bridal said the proposal would allow prosecutors to impose fines even when an owner brings a property into compliance late in the enforcement sequence, arguing the policy would motivate faster owner compliance and discourage repeat offenders.

Matt Mullen, senior attorney, reviewed options for a rental-dwelling license/registry (a possible placement in Title 5), enforcement mechanisms (suspension, revocation, misdemeanor prosecution under section 1.1007), and the likely timeline to reach compliance across the city’s rental stock (staff estimated full implementation could stretch to 2027 depending on scope and resources). He and City Manager Dr. Robert M. Perez clarified that state law prohibits mandatory interior inspections without occupant consent; staff said the registry proposals would be drafted to respect that limitation.

Public commenters included a mix of landlords, tenant advocates and residents. Steve Vogel, president of the Shawnee County Landlords Association, urged the council to better enforce existing property-maintenance code rather than adopt a new licensing scheme and warned a license denial could force tenant relocations. Representatives of Topeka Tenants (Martha Boatwright and Alex Buzicki) described prolonged maintenance problems in multifamily housing they attribute to large out-of-town owners (they named Lou McGinnis), urged stronger enforcement including a registry to increase transparency, and raised concerns about displacement risks.

Other speakers, including long-time landlords, cited Kansas Statute 12-16-138 in arguing state law limits municipal residential licensing that would require periodic interior inspections without occupant consent. Representative Alexis Simmons addressed the council for the first time and voiced support for a registry and offered to assist with state-level changes if needed.

Council members and staff generally signaled interest in pursuing further research and public engagement. Questions from the council focused on fee ranges (staff mentioned examples from other cities ranging roughly from $6 to $40 per unit, with $20 per license referenced as a discussion figure), timelines, incentives for good landlords, tenant protections and mechanisms to avoid unintended displacement. No ordinances were adopted on Nov. 12; staff requested direction and committee referral for more detailed drafting and public outreach.

What to watch: staff will return with more research on comparable-fee structures and committee recommendations; if the council pursues a registry or amended enforcement tools, draft ordinance language and an implementation plan (including estimated costs and timelines) will be required before formal adoption.

Direct transcript quotes used above are attributed to speakers who appear in the meeting record.