House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for SB52 - Committee on Local Government
Short Title
Creating the Sedgwick county urban area nuisance abatement act.
Minutes Content for Wed, Mar 17, 2021
The Chair called the meeting to order and opened the hearing on SB52.
Senior Revisor Mike Heim briefed the Committee on the bill. He noted that the abatement issue has appeared in various permutations over the years. The present bill allows the county to address the failure of a property owner to abate an identified nuisance on the property after the owner has previously ignored actions by the county to bring the property into compliance with county codes. Mr. Heim traced the provisions of each section of the bill: the procedures to mitigate the violation, the disposition of motor vehicles, the exclusion of agriculture-related property, and the July 1, 2024, sunset for the proposed statute. Answering a question, he replied that there is constitutional authority for cities to address nuisance issues, but counties are more limited in their authority.
Jim Howell, Sedgwick County Commissioner, testified as a proponent for the bill. He assured members of his support for individual property rights, but explained that the bill provides an additional tool for the county to act when a nuisance endangers others' health and safety (Attachment 1). He cited two examples from Sedgwick County where a property owner continued to ignore compliance requests and, because of a court decision in 2012, the county lacked authority to enforce property codes in unincorporated areas. The bill would provide additional compliance authority. He outlined a list of ten steps that must first occur before the provisions of the bill would become active, noting especially Item six, which identifies the violation as creating a dangerous condition.
Mr. Howell responded to members' questions:
- The ten-day stipulation has not historically been applied rigidly; commissioners and courts have been flexible in dealing with violators.
- The sunset provision of the proposed statute will allow the county to evaluate the effectiveness of the law.
- Cities have more authority through constitutional home rule. Counties work under statutory home rule with lesser authority.
- Sedgwick County has been given "Urban Area" status, a recognition that does not apply to most counties in the state.
Christopher Labrum, Director, Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Building and Construction Department, spoke in support of the bill (Attachment 2). Noting that his department oversees both the city and the county, he explained that the bill does not prescribe any changes in the structure of the county; it only gives the County Commissioners another tool to confront recalcitrant property owners. He stated that as enabling legislation the bill allows the creation of codes that encourage compliance; the bill addresses only extreme cases of noncompliance. He illustrated his statements with visual documentation to show the need for the bill (Attachment 3).
Mr. Labrum responded to members' questions and concerns:
- Zoning regulations determine what property owners are restricted from doing with their property. The bill augments but does not create zoning regulations.
- The bill does not come under any eminent-domain statutes.
- The county only investigates a property when it receives a complaint. The bill does not change the complaint process; it only becomes effective at the end of the complaint process.
- Of the 300 complaints received annually, about 12 are considered extreme, and only a few of those extreme cases would lead to an abatement action.
Randy Stookey, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, testifying on behalf of several agricultural interests, offered neutral testimony on the bill (Attachment 4).
The hearing on SB52 was closed.
