Committee hears bill to add 2012 IPMC as default maintenance standard for rentals where local code is absent
Loading...
Summary
HB 2,634 would require landlords to comply with locally adopted maintenance codes and, when a jurisdiction lacks a code, apply the 2012 International Property Maintenance Code as a default standard. Proponents argued it closes a court‑remedy gap for tenants; neutral witnesses raised questions about enforcement and effects on small landlords.
The Committee on Local Government heard extended testimony on House Bill 2,634, which would amend the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (KSA 58‑2553) to require landlords to comply with applicable maintenance codes and to apply the 2012 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) where a municipality or county has not adopted a maintenance code.
The revisor explained the bill expands the existing duty—landlords must comply with building and housing codes that materially affect health and safety—to include maintenance codes adopted by local governments, and where no local code exists the 2012 IPMC would serve as the default standard. The revisor pointed to existing remedies in KSA 58‑2559 for consequences if a landlord fails to comply.
Proponents argued the bill fills a gap that makes it difficult for tenants and courts to resolve habitability disputes in jurisdictions without a clear code. Representative Leah Howell said the change "creates a baseline a legal baseline where none currently exists" and emphasized the proposal preserves local control because jurisdictions may adopt or adjust their own codes. Michelle Ewart, director of the Washburn Law Clinic, said the default code gives courts a recognized framework and cited examples such as inoperative hallway lighting and windows that won’t lock as conditions the code addresses. Christina Guidry of United Community Services told the committee corporate ownership and deferred maintenance have increased the need for a default baseline; she said her research found 13 second‑class cities without a property maintenance code and "about a quarter" of third‑class cities lacking a default code.
Several committee members sought specifics about enforcement and scope. Representative Weigel asked whether common‑area services such as trash pickup would be covered; the revisor said current law already imposes a duty of reasonable care for common areas and the proposed default code would provide standards of reasonableness where applicable. Neutral testimony from Ed Jesquinia of the Associated Landlords of Kansas raised concerns about why the 2012 version was chosen, why the bill would apply only to rental properties and who would enforce a code in jurisdictions without the capacity to perform inspections.
Proponents said the bill does not create a state enforcement regime; it leaves local control intact and relies on tenant remedies under the Residential Landlord and Tenant Act. Supporters urged that the default code would help small claims and district courts evaluate habitability disputes where no local standard exists.
Next steps: The committee closed the hearing on HB 2,634; written opponent testimony from the Kansas Housing Association was noted in the record. The transcript does not show committee final action on this bill during the session.
