House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2238 - Committee on Local Government
Short Title
Sedgwick county urban area nuisance abatement act.
Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 20, 2019
The Chair opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. and requested action on two sets of Committee minutes: February 13 and 18. A motion was made by Representative Curtis and seconded by Representative Clark. The motion passed.
The Chair opened the hearing on HB2238.
Revisor Mike Heim briefed the Committee on the bill; he stated that the bill authorizes Sedgwick County to abate certain nuisance issues and charge the property owner if the owner does not deal with an identified nuisance. He gave a brief history of the abatement problem and noted a previous court case on the issue that found that a county had exceed its statutory authority and could only levy a fine, not require reimbursement for a county's costs. Answering a question, he replied that a bill was introduced in the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs that would give similar authority to all Kansas Counties.
Chris Labrum, Director, Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department, City of Wichita, testified as a proponent for the bill (Attachment 1). He noted that the county has 40,000 residents living outside the city limits, and presently the county does not have the authority to address nuisance conditions. He explained that the bill would provide one more tool for the county to protect its residents from unsafe conditions. He commented that the abatement process is a complaint-driven system utilized only for extreme conditions. He noted that a group of volunteers is available to assist a property owner in mitigating complaints. Mr. Labrum, anticipating the recommendation of opponents such as the Kansas Livestock Association (KLA), explained that agricultural property is treated as if it were exempt from the requirements of the bill, and he stated a willingness to work with the KLA to insert language addressing ponds and the value of any given property.
Mr. Labrum responded to members' questions:
- Abatement issues are handled differently in the county and in the city.
- No action is taken without the agency receiving a complaint.
- There is a backlog of citations for which the volunteers are available; the backlog occurs in the city, not the county.
- Examples of an extreme case would be an unsafe structure or garbage that poses a health concern. The location also determines what action may be taken.
- If the bill passes, there will likely be no increase in citations. The present process is complex enough to deter frivolous complaints.
Aaron Popelka, Vice President of Legal and Governmental Affairs, KLA, spoke as an opponent to the bill (Attachment 2). He touched on the history of the bill, commenting that a similar bill in 2014 was found to exceed a county's authority. The present bill is much more narrowly drawn. He observed that most opposition regarding the bill comes from agricultural interests in the county; he noted that there are 5000 farmers residing in Sedgwick County. He suggested three amendments in his testimony that would allow them to support this bill. Regarding a question of "urban areas," Mr. Heim explained that in the 1970s certain counties including Sedgwick were designated as urban areas.
The Chair noted two written-only testimonies in opposition to the bill:
- John Todd, Realtor, Wichita (Attachment 3) and
- Max Weddle, a citizen in Wichita (Attachment 4).
The Chair closed the hearing on HB2238.
